[ronki23]

Just wanted to say in advance that Deathly Hallows, with the exception of Return of the King (not read the book but seen the movie) is one of the best Harry Potter books.However, it did falter like many 'end' books did

***Spoiler***

Snape didn't talk to Harry and co.-he just had a brief duel and got killed and showed his thoughts and how he loved Lily.
Fred and Crabb died-though I have no care for the latter, i'm annoyed Rowling had a habit of cutting double acts in halves in this movie.
Harry and Voldemort duel was full of talking and Voldemort's wand just jumping into Harry's hand-no epic duel like Mace Windu/Yoda vs Palpatine or Obi Wan vs Anakin.
Mad Eye Moody got killed yet Harry didn't resurrect him.
Why didn't Harry just paint his parents/Sirius/Voldemort and talk to them?
Ron and Hermione 'too' convenient-Rowling always writing about how Ron hugged/embraced her all the time-Harry saying 'she's like a sister'
Tonks and Lupin-Lupin didn't want to stay with her but they got married and had a kid and he regretted it

Too Many Similarities

The Ring and the Pendant-how it affects the minds of Harry and co. and how it was burning getting heavy-like Frodo/Bilbo/Gollum/Isildur being affected by it.

The final battle-like the Ewoks or the men fighting superior soldiers to the bitter end-especially Buckbeak and the Thestrals like the Eagles.

Dumbeldore/Obi Wan as ghosts

Voldemort/Palpatine-'every single Jedi'/'every single Muggle born'

[ArcadiaHouse]

(Original post by ronki23)
Just wanted to say in advance that Deathly Hallows, with the exception of Return of the King (not read the book but seen the movie) is one of the best Harry Potter books.

[checkolad]

(Original post by ArcadiaHouse)

Who's that girl jumping up and down?

[magicmuggle]

(Original post by checkolad)
Who's that girl jumping up and down?

Daisy Lowe

[harrietx123x]

(Original post by magicmuggle)
Daisy Lowe

This has gone completely off-topic can I just say

[Pensivedore]

(Original post by ronki23)

***Spoiler***

Harry and Voldemort duel was full of talking and Voldemort's wand just jumping into Harry's hand-no epic duel like Mace Windu/Yoda vs Palpatine or Obi Wan vs Anakin.
Mad Eye Moody got killed yet Harry didn't resurrect him.
Why didn't Harry just paint his parents/Sirius/Voldemort and talk to them?
Ron and Hermione 'too' convenient-Rowling always writing about how Ron hugged/embraced her all the time-Harry saying 'she's like a sister'
Tonks and Lupin-Lupin didn't want to stay with her but they got married and had a kid and he regretted it

1) The whole duel between Harry and Voldemort not being epic was the whole point. It was to show that evil defeats itself, that Voldemort, in some way, destroyed himself. Rowling said hereself that it all came to down to a fist fight between two kids (Harry and Draco fighting over the Elder wand in Malfoy Manor and Harry becoming the owner)

2) Painting them: Now come on, seriously? Painting them? a) Harry is not an artist and b) painting them is another level of magic in itself and it requires the person to sit there and be painted (I think) and anyway, that would have made the plot a bit boring, don't you think? Harry just sat there painting everyone and talking to them.

3) Lupin did want to be with Tonks, it's just he felt that he shouldn't because he was a werewolf and I'm pretty sure he didn't regret having Teddy Lupin, he probably just didn't want to as it was in the middle of a war.

[ronki23]

(Original post by Pensivedore)
1) The whole duel between Harry and Voldemort not being epic was the whole point. It was to show that evil defeats itself, that Voldemort, in some way, destroyed himself. Rowling said hereself that it all came to down to a fist fight between two kids (Harry and Draco fighting over the Elder wand in Malfoy Manor and Harry becoming the owner)

2) Painting them: Now come on, seriously? Painting them? a) Harry is not an artist and b) painting them is another level of magic in itself and it requires the person to sit there and be painted (I think) and anyway, that would have made the plot a bit boring, don't you think? Harry just sat there painting everyone and talking to them.

3) Lupin did want to be with Tonks, it's just he felt that he shouldn't because he was a werewolf and I'm pretty sure he didn't regret having Teddy Lupin, he probably just didn't want to as it was in the middle of a war.

I'm sure Harry'd have known an artist in the whole of Hogwarts-maybe even a Weasley could have done so. I'm surprised NO ONE painted Lily or James
Harry vs Voldemort was worse than Luke vs Vader II-at least Return of the Jedi had the Emperor trying to kill Luke (not saying ROTJ was good)-Harry vs Draco was even worse
Why wasn't Moody resurrected?
Why was FRED killed-they should've killed Percy (no one'd miss him and he's not half of a duo). Again, it would've been nice to pain Fred at the end. Also Harry could've ressurected Fred.

Plus Voldemort vs Neville-I was expecting him to go:

'If you will not be turned you will be destroyed'

Plus the Horcruxes=LOTR. Especially them 'feeling heavy around the neck'

[ronki23]

(Original post by ArcadiaHouse)

Accident haha-one of the best Potter books.
I was gonna say it's one of the best end books like ROTK but not read ROTK and for an ending, ROTJ wasn't THAT bad

[Cmmah]

Wasn't the best book in my opinion. It probably wouldn't even be in the top three if I were to rate the series in order.
I do think Rowling got a bit trigger-happy with the amount of characters she killed off. Yes, I know it's the last book, not everybody lives, it can't be a happy ever after, but still.

[amii_G]

It would be in my Top 3, I think. Just about.

[ronki23]

(Original post by Cmmah)
Wasn't the best book in my opinion. It probably wouldn't even be in the top three if I were to rate the series in order.
I do think Rowling got a bit trigger-happy with the amount of characters she killed off. Yes, I know it's the last book, not everybody lives, it can't be a happy ever after, but still.

Spoiler:
Characters Killed in Deathly Hallows

Hedwig (good)
Moody (good)
Dobby (good)
Fred (good)
Tonks' father (good)
Tonks (good)
Lupin (good)
Snape (good)
Crabbe (bad)
Bellatrix (bad)


Characters Killed before Deathly Hallows
Cedric (yeah nobody cares about Sparkly Vampires)
Sirius
Dumbeldore

In Star Wars we lost much fewer main characters:

Qui Gon
Maul
Jango Fett
Dooku
Grievous
Windu

^all of these were big characters but not important to the overall story in that we knew they were going to die

the only important characters we lost were: Padme,Obi Wan, Yoda, Vader and the Emperor-a far cry from the bloodbath in Harry Potter-we already knew in Star Wars most of the prequel characters were to die since the sequels came first but still not as near as much as Harry Potter.

Lord of the Rings has far fewer:

Balin and some dwarves
Boromir
Haldir
Hama
Theoden
Saruman
Wormtongue
Gollum
Sauron

[Star7]

(Original post by ronki23)
Just wanted to say in advance that Deathly Hallows, with the exception of Return of the King (not read the book but seen the movie) is one of the best Harry Potter books.However, it did falter like many 'end' books did

***Spoiler***

Snape didn't talk to Harry and co.-he just had a brief duel and got killed and showed his thoughts and how he loved Lily.

Just putting out my thoughts here

About Snape: that's basically it, but there was a lot of stuff going on behind it; remember the trio and everyone else believe Snape killed Dumbledore for no other reason than to allow Voldemort full reign over the wizarding world. Obviously if he tried talking to the trio they probably wouldn't have let him talk since they hate him (he also caused George to lose his ear, albeit accidentally), though he could probably cast a Patronus to make them listen. When he was giving Harry his thoughts he was dying and obviously thinking about Lily during his last moments so inadvertently gave those memories to Harry as well as the Harry-is-a-horcrux memory. It did explain everything really about why he was protecting Harry and working for both Voldemort and Dumbledore and why exactly Dumbledore trusted him so much, confirming Snape's status as a "good guy".

Fred and Crabb died-though I have no care for the latter, i'm annoyed Rowling had a habit of cutting double acts in halves in this movie.

There aren't many double acts cut in half. Malfoy and Goyle would have died if it weren't for Harry, and he probably could have saved Crabbe if he saw him when escaping the Room of Hidden Things. Both deaths are very different and happened for very different reasons and had different impacts on the reader. I never noticed the tendency of cutting double acts in halves. I felt angry and sad when Fred died, and relieved when Crabbe died (come on, he was just a creepy psycho).

Harry and Voldemort duel was full of talking and Voldemort's wand just jumping into Harry's hand-no epic duel like Mace Windu/Yoda vs Palpatine or Obi Wan vs Anakin.

Like one poster said earlier, this was purely intentional. Harry needed to talk to make us and Voldemort understand. Dumbledore said that even without his horcruxes, Voldemort's magical skill would still surpass Harry's. The whole point was to show just how powerful the magic of love is, how Voldemort can never be powerful enough because he underestimates the greatest power there is, and it is a recurring idea throughout the book and therefore neat for JKR to return to it. It also highlights Voldemort's ruthlessness in needing to kill to possess the Elder Wand, rather than just disarm. I thought the speech was more powerful than just having yet another duel which wouldn't have worked anyway because the wand would not want to have attacked its master. The same thing would have happened but there would be no proper explanation. And Harry also gave Voldemort the chance to redeem himself by feeling some remorse for what he did, which is incredible and shows again how Harry's a very unusual wizard.

Mad Eye Moody got killed yet Harry didn't resurrect him.

By that logic, Cedric got killed; why wasn't he resurrected? Dumbledore died, why wasn't he resurrected? You can't bring back someone from the dead, this is such an important theme in the books. Harry doesn't even have the power to resurrect anyone from the dead. Also, if I remember correctly, Moody's body couldn't be found, given that his eye was in Umbridge's door. Voldemort managed to be resurrected but then again, he wasn't really dead.

Why didn't Harry just paint his parents/Sirius/Voldemort and talk to them?

Harry? When he was writing Dobby's headstone he felt that Hermione would have done a better job. I doubt he's artistically inclined, or would have had the time, or that Dean would have obliged, or that anyone at the age of 17 had that kind of power. There is obviously some deeper magic behind just painting portraits of dead people, probably following the logic behind why some people come back as ghosts - because they leave behind an imprint. It needs to be intentional. It was important for Harry to understand the meaning of death. The conversation he has with Nick at the end of Book 5 is really interesting.

Also, was that a typo? Why on earth would Harry even want to talk to Voldemort after his death?

Ron and Hermione 'too' convenient-Rowling always writing about how Ron hugged/embraced her all the time-Harry saying 'she's like a sister'

It's so much more complicated than that. Imagine just how terrified Ron and Hermione would have been (we don't see their point of views) so they're bound to get closer when they're living in such close quarters 24/7. Also, you're forgetting how Ron left Harry and Hermione, and how cold Hermione was towards Ron when he finally returned. Ron and Hermione had their fair share of arguments as well - see the third book when they didn't speak for weeks, or the sixth book with all that Lavender stuff going on.

And I thought it was touching when Harry described Hermione like his sister. I think JKR herself said how Harry nominated Ron and Hermione as his family. The relationships between the trio is so important and there's nothing convenient about it. If it weren't for the troll in Book 1 (or Quirrell/Voldemort for that matter) then there would probably be no Hermione. She's more than just a love interest for Ron, and more than just an encyclopaedia.

Tonks and Lupin-Lupin didn't want to stay with her but they got married and had a kid and he regretted it

Because, like someone said earlier, he was a werewolf. He was probably seduced by the idea of having a normal life (as normal as possible during a war) by having his own family, and he didn't really have anyone, what with James and Sirius being dead. They got married, had a kid, and he regretted it because he was terrified the kid might be like him. If you read what he says to the trio in DH it is so heartbreaking, really.

The Ring and the Pendant-how it affects the minds of Harry and co. and how it was burning getting heavy-like Frodo/Bilbo/Gollum/Isildur being affected by it.

They are pretty similar, but JKR hasn't denied her being influenced by Tolkien when writing the books. But again, I think there's too much generalisation. In essence, they are pretty similar, but they are inherently different in their natures. The Ring wants to get back to its master, it betrays people, and leaves people by itself. The locket, however, is just a locket with a bit of Voldemort's soul inside, it doesn't possess them or affect their minds to the extent that the Ring does. It only brings out what the trio are already thinking anyway, even subconsciously. Ron sums it up pretty well before he destroys the locket, in saying how the horcrux made everything much worse, and how it was stuff he was thinking already. The Ring is more manipulative and makes people do and think things they ordinarily wouldn't under normal circumstances. And the Ring only got heavier the closer Frodo was to Mount Doom and the stronger Sauron was growing. The locket was heavy to begin with.

The final battle-like the Ewoks or the men fighting superior soldiers to the bitter end-especially Buckbeak and the Thestrals like the Eagles.

It just shows how everything and everyone gets involved when it really matters. To be honest, I don't remember Buckbeak and the Thestrals getting involved in the final battle, I might be wrong. I only remember Buckbeak at the end of Book 6, but I suspect Hagrid may have been involved.

Dumbeldore/Obi Wan as ghosts

Dumbledore didn't come back as a ghost, an echo remained to enable him to communicate with Snape as a portrait. He still needed to instruct Snape on helping out the trio and protecting Hogwarts and his role as a double-agent. It wasn't guidance. And I think that's a bit of a tenuous comparison, given that Dumbledore could not avoid his death, what with the curse and Malfoy's orders and Snape's Unbreakable Vow.

I have to admit, I can't fully expand on the comparisons you've raised between Star Wars and Harry Potter since it's been years since I last saw a Star Wars film.

I'm not saying the series is without faults, but there is no way in writing a fantasy without having some similarities with other fantasies. There are certain tropes that make a book a fantasy, and JKR chooses the ones to use very carefully. If you look at the HP series as a whole and on its own, it is a very neatly written series (as a whole, I'm not going into a debate about her writing style) in having recurring themes about love and death and things like the Chosen One and the prophecy (I did like JKR's approach in having the prophecy as being something of a choice, rather than pre-determining actions and negating free will). Nothing jumps out at you. Even the horcrux thing was planned from the very first book. It might be impossible to write a fantasy series without there being any similarities at all with other fantasies. That's far too much to expect from any author.

Apologies for the huge post I've been thinking about this for a while and I hope it makes some sense

[ronki23]

(Original post by Star7)
Just putting out my thoughts here

About Snape: that's basically it, but there was a lot of stuff going on behind it; remember the trio and everyone else believe Snape killed Dumbledore for no other reason than to allow Voldemort full reign over the wizarding world. Obviously if he tried talking to the trio they probably wouldn't have let him talk since they hate him (he also caused George to lose his ear, albeit accidentally), though he could probably cast a Patronus to make them listen. When he was giving Harry his thoughts he was dying and obviously thinking about Lily during his last moments so inadvertently gave those memories to Harry as well as the Harry-is-a-horcrux memory. It did explain everything really about why he was protecting Harry and working for both Voldemort and Dumbledore and why exactly Dumbledore trusted him so much, confirming Snape's status as a "good guy".



There aren't many double acts cut in half. Malfoy and Goyle would have died if it weren't for Harry, and he probably could have saved Crabbe if he saw him when escaping the Room of Hidden Things. Both deaths are very different and happened for very different reasons and had different impacts on the reader. I never noticed the tendency of cutting double acts in halves. I felt angry and sad when Fred died, and relieved when Crabbe died (come on, he was just a creepy psycho).



Like one poster said earlier, this was purely intentional. Harry needed to talk to make us and Voldemort understand. Dumbledore said that even without his horcruxes, Voldemort's magical skill would still surpass Harry's. The whole point was to show just how powerful the magic of love is, how Voldemort can never be powerful enough because he underestimates the greatest power there is, and it is a recurring idea throughout the book and therefore neat for JKR to return to it. It also highlights Voldemort's ruthlessness in needing to kill to possess the Elder Wand, rather than just disarm. I thought the speech was more powerful than just having yet another duel which wouldn't have worked anyway because the wand would not want to have attacked its master. The same thing would have happened but there would be no proper explanation. And Harry also gave Voldemort the chance to redeem himself by feeling some remorse for what he did, which is incredible and shows again how Harry's a very unusual wizard.


By that logic, Cedric got killed; why wasn't he resurrected? Dumbledore died, why wasn't he resurrected? You can't bring back someone from the dead, this is such an important theme in the books. Harry doesn't even have the power to resurrect anyone from the dead. Also, if I remember correctly, Moody's body couldn't be found, given that his eye was in Umbridge's door. Voldemort managed to be resurrected but then again, he wasn't really dead.



Harry? When he was writing Dobby's headstone he felt that Hermione would have done a better job. I doubt he's artistically inclined, or would have had the time, or that Dean would have obliged, or that anyone at the age of 17 had that kind of power. There is obviously some deeper magic behind just painting portraits of dead people, probably following the logic behind why some people come back as ghosts - because they leave behind an imprint. It needs to be intentional. It was important for Harry to understand the meaning of death. The conversation he has with Nick at the end of Book 5 is really interesting.

Also, was that a typo? Why on earth would Harry even want to talk to Voldemort after his death?



It's so much more complicated than that. Imagine just how terrified Ron and Hermione would have been (we don't see their point of views) so they're bound to get closer when they're living in such close quarters 24/7. Also, you're forgetting how Ron left Harry and Hermione, and how cold Hermione was towards Ron when he finally returned. Ron and Hermione had their fair share of arguments as well - see the third book when they didn't speak for weeks, or the sixth book with all that Lavender stuff going on.

And I thought it was touching when Harry described Hermione like his sister. I think JKR herself said how Harry nominated Ron and Hermione as his family. The relationships between the trio is so important and there's nothing convenient about it. If it weren't for the troll in Book 1 (or Quirrell/Voldemort for that matter) then there would probably be no Hermione. She's more than just a love interest for Ron, and more than just an encyclopaedia.


Because, like someone said earlier, he was a werewolf. He was probably seduced by the idea of having a normal life (as normal as possible during a war) by having his own family, and he didn't really have anyone, what with James and Sirius being dead. They got married, had a kid, and he regretted it because he was terrified the kid might be like him. If you read what he says to the trio in DH it is so heartbreaking, really.


They are pretty similar, but JKR hasn't denied her being influenced by Tolkien when writing the books. But again, I think there's too much generalisation. In essence, they are pretty similar, but they are inherently different in their natures. The Ring wants to get back to its master, it betrays people, and leaves people by itself. The locket, however, is just a locket with a bit of Voldemort's soul inside, it doesn't possess them or affect their minds to the extent that the Ring does. It only brings out what the trio are already thinking anyway, even subconsciously. Ron sums it up pretty well before he destroys the locket, in saying how the horcrux made everything much worse, and how it was stuff he was thinking already. The Ring is more manipulative and makes people do and think things they ordinarily wouldn't under normal circumstances. And the Ring only got heavier the closer Frodo was to Mount Doom and the stronger Sauron was growing. The locket was heavy to begin with.



It just shows how everything and everyone gets involved when it really matters. To be honest, I don't remember Buckbeak and the Thestrals getting involved in the final battle, I might be wrong. I only remember Buckbeak at the end of Book 6, but I suspect Hagrid may have been involved.



Dumbledore didn't come back as a ghost, an echo remained to enable him to communicate with Snape as a portrait. He still needed to instruct Snape on helping out the trio and protecting Hogwarts and his role as a double-agent. It wasn't guidance. And I think that's a bit of a tenuous comparison, given that Dumbledore could not avoid his death, what with the curse and Malfoy's orders and Snape's Unbreakable Vow.

I have to admit, I can't fully expand on the comparisons you've raised between Star Wars and Harry Potter since it's been years since I last saw a Star Wars film.

I'm not saying the series is without faults, but there is no way in writing a fantasy without having some similarities with other fantasies. There are certain tropes that make a book a fantasy, and JKR chooses the ones to use very carefully. If you look at the HP series as a whole and on its own, it is a very neatly written series (as a whole, I'm not going into a debate about her writing style) in having recurring themes about love and death and things like the Chosen One and the prophecy (I did like JKR's approach in having the prophecy as being something of a choice, rather than pre-determining actions and negating free will). Nothing jumps out at you. Even the horcrux thing was planned from the very first book. It might be impossible to write a fantasy series without there being any similarities at all with other fantasies. That's far too much to expect from any author.

Apologies for the huge post I've been thinking about this for a while and I hope it makes some sense

They should've killed Crabbe AND Goyle-what makes Goyle so much better that they keep him alive.
As for Fred-that was harsh-they should've killed Percy imo (nobody liked him and his redemption before death would've made it better). Although it would've been humerous have a portrait of Fred trolling everyone in the Weasley house after he died.
As I said, Dumbeldore had a portrait-i'm sure they could've made it so that if the characters died in a certain way they could not be repainted or they could only remember so much.
As for resurrection-Moody should've been brought back simply because Harry knew him far longer than Cedric and he didn't know about the stone until Deathly Hallows.

Harry, Ron and Hermione= Luke,Han and Leia :/

[Star7]

(Original post by ronki23)
They should've killed Crabbe AND Goyle-what makes Goyle so much better that they keep him alive.
As for Fred-that was harsh-they should've killed Percy imo (nobody liked him and his redemption before death would've made it better). Although it would've been humerous have a portrait of Fred trolling everyone in the Weasley house after he died.
As I said, Dumbeldore had a portrait-i'm sure they could've made it so that if the characters died in a certain way they could not be repainted or they could only remember so much.
As for resurrection-Moody should've been brought back simply because Harry knew him far longer than Cedric and he didn't know about the stone until Deathly Hallows.

Harry, Ron and Hermione= Luke,Han and Leia :/

Nothing really. JKR's choice. I don't think we hear about Goyle after that bit. But it would be unrealistic to have everyone evil and unkind die. It's like how nearly every death eater died once the battle in Hogwarts resumed. Now that was just unrealistic and a bit rushed, I thought.

But they can't have everyone who died as portraits because they would never be able to understand the meaning of death and the need to move on and realise that those who died have "gone on". Otherwise George would have just carried Fred's portrait all over the place. We never get to know the magic of talking portraits anyway, which is a shame.

However powerful Moody was, I don't think he was that close to Harry as his parents, Sirius and Lupin were. And no one can bring back the dead. It is taboo in the wizarding world. Remember the Tale of the Three Brothers? The second brother with the Resurrection Stone brought back his fiancée, but she was so miserable and distant that he killed himself to be with her in death. Moody's body couldn't be found so even if anyone dared to resurrect him, they wouldn't be able to without his body.

And yeah, true. Except Luke and Leia were actually related and Harry never showed any signs of harbouring any romantic feelings towards Hermione. I say this to emphasise the different relationships within the trio compared to Luke, Han and Leia. They have different dynamics and are in different situations. The trio in HP practically grew up with each other over the seven years we see them.

-

One thing I did have a problem with is that no matter how JKR tried to show how deaths in war are unpredictable and meaningless at times, the trio and Ginny came out relatively unharmed. I just find it a bit unrealistic (how on earth could Lupin and Tonks - an Auror, of all people - die and a couple of kids survive?) and maybe JKR was trying a bit too hard to make everyone have this super happy ending (although George didn't have a happy ending) after the bloodbath of DH. It is a kid's book, so maybe a bittersweet ending wouldn't have had as much of an impact as a satisfyingly happy ending.

[ronki23]

(Original post by Star7)
Nothing really. JKR's choice. I don't think we hear about Goyle after that bit. But it would be unrealistic to have everyone evil and unkind die. It's like how nearly every death eater died once the battle in Hogwarts resumed. Now that was just unrealistic and a bit rushed, I thought.

But they can't have everyone who died as portraits because they would never be able to understand the meaning of death and the need to move on and realise that those who died have "gone on". Otherwise George would have just carried Fred's portrait all over the place. We never get to know the magic of talking portraits anyway, which is a shame.

However powerful Moody was, I don't think he was that close to Harry as his parents, Sirius and Lupin were. And no one can bring back the dead. It is taboo in the wizarding world. Remember the Tale of the Three Brothers? The second brother with the Resurrection Stone brought back his fiancée, but she was so miserable and distant that he killed himself to be with her in death. Moody's body couldn't be found so even if anyone dared to resurrect him, they wouldn't be able to without his body.

And yeah, true. Except Luke and Leia were actually related and Harry never showed any signs of harbouring any romantic feelings towards Hermione. I say this to emphasise the different relationships within the trio compared to Luke, Han and Leia. They have different dynamics and are in different situations. The trio in HP practically grew up with each other over the seven years we see them.

-

One thing I did have a problem with is that no matter how JKR tried to show how deaths in war are unpredictable and meaningless at times, the trio and Ginny came out relatively unharmed. I just find it a bit unrealistic (how on earth could Lupin and Tonks - an Auror, of all people - die and a couple of kids survive?) and maybe JKR was trying a bit too hard to make everyone have this super happy ending (although George didn't have a happy ending) after the bloodbath of DH. It is a kid's book, so maybe a bittersweet ending wouldn't have had as much of an impact as a satisfyingly happy ending.

Moody's body may not have been found, but neither were James and Lily's :/

As I said, we already lost Dumbeldore (ok-his portrait was still there in the end but still) but we lose Snape and Sirius-I think it was a bit much getting rid of Tonks AND Lupin,Tonks' Dad AND Fred and Hedwig; would've been better imo if they killed off Tonks and left Lupin to raise the kid as he was reluctant to. I thought Percy'd have been a better Weasley to kill off.

I thought the final battle could've been more epic and the spell hitting Harry not working-like there's a shield/enchantment around him.

As for the portraits-I thought Fred,Sirius,Moody,Dobby could've made talking portraits (PARTICULARLY Dobby as he'd be the first priveledged elf to get one) but with some sort of catch. Snape wouldn't need one really because it's not in his character ALTHOUGH he'd be a good guard to Slytherin common room.
^I think it is a huge 'what if' with portraits.

A lot of 'end' books always end up with something ruining it. Return of the Jedi had the Ewoks and the Luke/Vader battle being too short and seeming one-sided (I think the duel wasn't even 2 minutes and all Vader could do was knock Luke off the hanging rafter-the fact Luke kicked him down stairs so early in the battle sucked too).
Return of the King as a movie was good compared to the book (didn't finish the book but heard SAM kills Saruman). The fact Sam gets married and has kids is a bit silly when the other Fellowship members DON'T. Apparently Sam goes looking for Frodo after his wife dies (as if he's immortal) and Merry and Pippin die. In the book the Shire is under attack which I think is not a good idea considering Rohan and Gonder and Elves are on the good side and they could just summon Gandalf to call for help.
The only peeve in the ROTK movie is Sam getting married and the rest not, and how the Witch King destroy's Gandalf's staff yet he gets killed by Eowyn.

Must be a trap for all finale books to suck

[Star7]

(Original post by ronki23)
Moody's body may not have been found, but neither were James and Lily's :/

As I said, we already lost Dumbeldore (ok-his portrait was still there in the end but still) but we lose Snape and Sirius-I think it was a bit much getting rid of Tonks AND Lupin,Tonks' Dad AND Fred and Hedwig; would've been better imo if they killed off Tonks and left Lupin to raise the kid as he was reluctant to. I thought Percy'd have been a better Weasley to kill off.

I thought the final battle could've been more epic and the spell hitting Harry not working-like there's a shield/enchantment around him.

As for the portraits-I thought Fred,Sirius,Moody,Dobby could've made talking portraits (PARTICULARLY Dobby as he'd be the first priveledged elf to get one) but with some sort of catch. Snape wouldn't need one really because it's not in his character ALTHOUGH he'd be a good guard to Slytherin common room.
^I think it is a huge 'what if' with portraits.

A lot of 'end' books always end up with something ruining it. Return of the Jedi had the Ewoks and the Luke/Vader battle being too short and seeming one-sided (I think the duel wasn't even 2 minutes and all Vader could do was knock Luke off the hanging rafter-the fact Luke kicked him down stairs so early in the battle sucked too).
Return of the King as a movie was good compared to the book (didn't finish the book but heard SAM kills Saruman). The fact Sam gets married and has kids is a bit silly when the other Fellowship members DON'T. Apparently Sam goes looking for Frodo after his wife dies (as if he's immortal) and Merry and Pippin die. In the book the Shire is under attack which I think is not a good idea considering Rohan and Gonder and Elves are on the good side and they could just summon Gandalf to call for help.
The only peeve in the ROTK movie is Sam getting married and the rest not, and how the Witch King destroy's Gandalf's staff yet he gets killed by Eowyn.

Must be a trap for all finale books to suck

James' and Lily's bodies were found in Godric's Hollow. If Hagrid was able to rescue Harry from under all that rubble then I'm pretty sure they'd be able to get out his parents' bodies too.

Everyone thinks that Percy should have died - so do I, but it was satisfying seeing Percy completely lose control after Fred died and I don't think Percy's death would have affected the twins and Ron to such an extent. Yeah, he returned to fight and apologised to his family but then for him to die, I just don't think it would be as emotional as the death of someone who stuck with his family and defied the Ministry. I think it would have been cheap of JKR to kill off a distinctly unlikeable character anyway.

I think JKR made the decision to kill off Tonks and Lupin to mirror Harry's life, and to show that no one is safe in a war just because they have parents.

The spell rebounded on Voldemort for that reason - Harry was the master of the Elder Wand so the Killing Curse wouldn't have hit Harry as long as Harry was defending himself.

Sam doesn't kill Saruman. Wormtongue kills Saruman because he was mistreated, and Wormtongue in turn was killed by the hobbit archers. And it was Sam's choice to get married. Aragorn was part of the Fellowship and he married Arwen. Not everyone felt the need to get married and have a family. The reason why Sam searches for Frodo and goes to the Undying Lands is because he was a Ring-Bearer for a short amount of time when he thought Frodo was dead.

Gandalf knew what happened to the Shire, but it was the hobbits' fight, he couldn't get involved. The hobbits can't call on Gondor, Rohan or the elves to help them protect the Shire, and I think it would be out of character because hobbits don't trust outsiders. Gandalf himself says how hobbits can still surprise you even after learning everything there is to know about them. Hobbits have their own strength. It shows that the Shire is as strong as Rohan and Gondor, and just as capable of defending themselves.

[ronki23]

(Original post by Star7)
James' and Lily's bodies were found in Godric's Hollow. If Hagrid was able to rescue Harry from under all that rubble then I'm pretty sure they'd be able to get out his parents' bodies too.

Everyone thinks that Percy should have died - so do I, but it was satisfying seeing Percy completely lose control after Fred died and I don't think Percy's death would have affected the twins and Ron to such an extent. Yeah, he returned to fight and apologised to his family but then for him to die, I just don't think it would be as emotional as the death of someone who stuck with his family and defied the Ministry. I think it would have been cheap of JKR to kill off a distinctly unlikeable character anyway.

I think JKR made the decision to kill off Tonks and Lupin to mirror Harry's life, and to show that no one is safe in a war just because they have parents.

The spell rebounded on Voldemort for that reason - Harry was the master of the Elder Wand so the Killing Curse wouldn't have hit Harry as long as Harry was defending himself.

Sam doesn't kill Saruman. Wormtongue kills Saruman because he was mistreated, and Wormtongue in turn was killed by the hobbit archers. And it was Sam's choice to get married. Aragorn was part of the Fellowship and he married Arwen. Not everyone felt the need to get married and have a family. The reason why Sam searches for Frodo and goes to the Undying Lands is because he was a Ring-Bearer for a short amount of time when he thought Frodo was dead.

Gandalf knew what happened to the Shire, but it was the hobbits' fight, he couldn't get involved. The hobbits can't call on Gondor, Rohan or the elves to help them protect the Shire, and I think it would be out of character because hobbits don't trust outsiders. Gandalf himself says how hobbits can still surprise you even after learning everything there is to know about them. Hobbits have their own strength. It shows that the Shire is as strong as Rohan and Gondor, and just as capable of defending themselves.

Haven't seen the movie but in the book the 'duel' just has the spells clash and Voldemort's wand fly out of his hand-I thought it'd have been better if the spell didn't affect Harry and Harry's spell kill Voldemort

Merry,Pippin,Legolas,Gimli, Eomer, Faramir and Eowyn-all of them should've got married and raised a family since the war ended-only Sam and Aragorn is unrealistic, especially since Aragorn was already with Arwen.

As for the attack on the Shire, it's the duty of Rohan and Gondor and the remaining elves-considering the Hobbits fought for them (Merry and Pippin) and actually did the hard work; Gandalf should've knew Saruman was somehwat dangerous.

As for Sam searching for Frodo-really? Frodo made the world safe, Sam had a family (what makes Sam so special his wife dies first?)

[madders94]

(Original post by Star7)
One thing I did have a problem with is that no matter how JKR tried to show how deaths in war are unpredictable and meaningless at times, the trio and Ginny came out relatively unharmed. I just find it a bit unrealistic (how on earth could Lupin and Tonks - an Auror, of all people - die and a couple of kids survive?) and maybe JKR was trying a bit too hard to make everyone have this super happy ending (although George didn't have a happy ending) after the bloodbath of DH. It is a kid's book, so maybe a bittersweet ending wouldn't have had as much of an impact as a satisfyingly happy ending.

I guess Lupin and Tonks' deaths (I cried like a baby when I read it ) can probably be justified by saying that Bellatrix was so determined to kill Tonks that there was very little even an Auror could do (and she wouldn't be at the top of her Auror game because she'd only just had a baby), and Lupin would have been distracted, trying to protect Tonks that he wouldn't had stood much chance against Dolohov.

[AlmostChicGeek]

(Original post by ronki23)
Moody's body may not have been found, but neither were James and Lily's :/

As I said, we already lost Dumbeldore (ok-his portrait was still there in the end but still) but we lose Snape and Sirius-I think it was a bit much getting rid of Tonks AND Lupin,Tonks' Dad AND Fred and Hedwig; would've been better imo if they killed off Tonks and left Lupin to raise the kid as he was reluctant to. I thought Percy'd have been a better Weasley to kill off.

I thought the final battle could've been more epic and the spell hitting Harry not working-like there's a shield/enchantment around him.

As for the portraits-I thought Fred,Sirius,Moody,Dobby could've made talking portraits (PARTICULARLY Dobby as he'd be the first priveledged elf to get one) but with some sort of catch. Snape wouldn't need one really because it's not in his character ALTHOUGH he'd be a good guard to Slytherin common room.
^I think it is a huge 'what if' with portraits.

A lot of 'end' books always end up with something ruining it. Return of the Jedi had the Ewoks and the Luke/Vader battle being too short and seeming one-sided (I think the duel wasn't even 2 minutes and all Vader could do was knock Luke off the hanging rafter-the fact Luke kicked him down stairs so early in the battle sucked too).
Return of the King as a movie was good compared to the book (didn't finish the book but heard SAM kills Saruman). The fact Sam gets married and has kids is a bit silly when the other Fellowship members DON'T. Apparently Sam goes looking for Frodo after his wife dies (as if he's immortal) and Merry and Pippin die. In the book the Shire is under attack which I think is not a good idea considering Rohan and Gonder and Elves are on the good side and they could just summon Gandalf to call for help.
The only peeve in the ROTK movie is Sam getting married and the rest not, and how the Witch King destroy's Gandalf's staff yet he gets killed by Eowyn.

Must be a trap for all finale books to suck

Can I point out Percy not dying and getting revenge for Fred was one the most emotional parts of the battle. It was bittersweet and an interesting way for him to rejoin the family.

Dumbledore has a portrait because he was a headmaster of Hogwarts. Not everyone gets one - they are pretty exclusive.

[Star7]

(Original post by ronki23)
Haven't seen the movie but in the book the 'duel' just has the spells clash and Voldemort's wand fly out of his hand-I thought it'd have been better if the spell didn't affect Harry and Harry's spell kill Voldemort

Merry,Pippin,Legolas,Gimli, Eomer, Faramir and Eowyn-all of them should've got married and raised a family since the war ended-only Sam and Aragorn is unrealistic, especially since Aragorn was already with Arwen.

As for the attack on the Shire, it's the duty of Rohan and Gondor and the remaining elves-considering the Hobbits fought for them (Merry and Pippin) and actually did the hard work; Gandalf should've knew Saruman was somehwat dangerous.

As for Sam searching for Frodo-really? Frodo made the world safe, Sam had a family (what makes Sam so special his wife dies first?)

I liked how Harry didn't intend on using a Killing Curse. He's not a saint (he used the Cruciatus and Imperius curses after all) but like one poster said, it was to show how evil defeats itself.

Why should everyone get married? Surely it's enough to have a companion, particularly one who understood everything they went through and were closer to each other than to anyone else. I don't think it's unrealistic to have Aragorn and Arwen finally marry each other. Sam seems the type to just want to settle down and have a family. And Sam and Frodo stuck with each other for so long through such a dangerous and life-threatening journey and they thought they might never return to the Shire. It's no wonder why Sam wanted to find Frodo, he cared so much about him. Even being a companion of the Ring-Bearer, as well as being a Ring-Bearer for a short period of time himself, has got to have some after-effect. Also, Faramir and Eowyn did marry each other.

Sorry, but Frodo - no matter how strong he was - shouldn't take full credit for making the world safe. It was the combined effort of Frodo and Sam, and some twisted luck of Gollum which inevitably lead to the Ring getting destroyed. If it was just Frodo, Sauron would probably be in power again. Remember the Ring completely took over Frodo, he couldn't destroy it when the time came.

(Original post by madders94)
I guess Lupin and Tonks' deaths (I cried like a baby when I read it ) can probably be justified by saying that Bellatrix was so determined to kill Tonks that there was very little even an Auror could do (and she wouldn't be at the top of her Auror game because she'd only just had a baby), and Lupin would have been distracted, trying to protect Tonks that he wouldn't had stood much chance against Dolohov.

Yeah, I know, it was more my initial reaction. I thought that too when I had time to think over it.
Still, one of the most depressing deaths in HP ever