Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

[Squeek]

***Filler to prevent anything from showing when hovered over in the thread list.***

The final book of the the series is jam-packed with events and happenings that not discussing it would be criminal.

So what do you all think? I was just exasperated every time I saw a tie to a previous book. Moreso when I just knew it was coming. Very few times did I manage to foresee them, but I loved it when I was right.

As for the movie rendition of this book, as I said in another thread, they really should consider making it two parts due to just how long it's going to end up being if they plan on doing it any justice at all. So many places, so many people, so many events. There's just no way 2, 3, even 4 hours could hold it all.

[flawofhumanity]

I loved the way the book was presented, and it was by far the best in my opinion. I mean, the mood of the whole book was great, and I was never bored with it. I had a few qualms, but that's okay.

Incoming spoilers, though the title already has it:







One thing that bothered me a lot was the epilogue. I feel that it left a lot of questions unanswered, such as:

1. What happened with Hogwarts?
2. What happened with the Professors?
3. What became of the Order, or the Weasleys?
4. Professions. I'd really have liked to see what everyone grew up to do. (Excluding Neville, who she told us became the Herbology professor.)
5. The Dursleys. I'd be interested in seeing whatever became of them.

The Hallows seemed underplayed to me as well, they were spoken about and led up to the whole book, only to have almost no effect (besides the ring, of course, and the wand resulting in Snape's death.) Speaking of Snape, I was surprised about the plan with Dumbledore, I thought for sure he was a traitor.



As for the movie, I don't see how they're going to do it without changing A LOT. For example, they left out Kreecher in the Order of the Phoenix. I bet the director is having fun figuring that one out now. They left out something else, I'm sure, but I can't remember it. I agree that one film would not do the seventh book justice, but I can't WAIT to see the battle at Hogwarts, or even the chase at the beginning.

EDIT: The two way mirror! That's the other thing they left out. I suppose they'll find a way to introduce one or both of them early in the 6th book.

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by flawofhumanity

1. What happened with Hogwarts?
2. What happened with the Professors?
3. What became of the Order, or the Weasleys?
4. Professions. I'd really have liked to see what everyone grew up to do. (Excluding Neville, who she told us became the Herbology professor.)
5. The Dursleys. I'd be interested in seeing whatever became of them.

The Hallows seemed underplayed to me as well, they were spoken about and led up to the whole book, only to have almost no effect (besides the ring, of course, and the wand resulting in Snape's death.) Speaking of Snape, I was surprised about the plan with Dumbledore, I thought for sure he was a traitor.



As for the movie, I don't see how they're going to do it without changing A LOT. For example, they left out Kreecher in the Order of the Phoenix. I bet the director is having fun figuring that one out now. They left out something else, I'm sure, but I can't remember it. I agree that one film would not do the seventh book justice, but I can't WAIT to see the battle at Hogwarts, or even the chase at the beginning.

EDIT: The two way mirror! That's the other thing they left out. I suppose they'll find a way to introduce one or both of them early in the 6th book.

1) Rebuilt. Simple as that. Probably reformed due to not needing major protection any longer.

2) Continued on with teaching? Why wouldn't they?

3) The Order of the Phoenix = Anti-Voldemort organization. With Voldemort gone, the organization has no purpose and thus disbands. The Weasleys probably mourn the losses felt, but move on with their lives.

4) Aurors? Normal people? Who knows. Again, with Voldemort gone, the only job Harry ever wanted probably became meaningless. How many Dark Wizards would there be with the fall of Voldemort, after all?

5) Me too.

@Hallows: Harry had all three as he approached Voldemort in the forest, therefore making him the Master of Death. You knew he didn't die for a reason, right? With the stone, the cloak, and the wand all in his "command", he possessed the rights to all three Hallows and thus became the Master of Death, giving him the choice of whether to die or to live without the part of Voldemort's soul in him.

@Snape: It was obvious he wasn't. Dumbledore had faith in him throughout every book.

@Kreacher: He was in the movie. Not really shown a lot, but he was in the movie.

@Mirror: Simple. "Sirius wanted you to have this."

[Soujiro_The_Tenkan]

lol your wrong harry did not possess all through hallows when he went to the forest to die from voldemort, he only had the cloak in the end because he dropped the ring walking in the forest right before he made it to voldemort i suggest you read what dumbledoor said while harry was in limbo to get a full understanding and why would harry need a job hes bloody famous after that

[Squeek]

Just because he dropped the stone does not mean he is no longer the rightful possessor of it.

Proof of that comes from the fact that he wasn't holding the wand, yet it was still "his".

[flawofhumanity]

Originally Posted by Squeek

1) Rebuilt. Simple as that. Probably reformed due to not needing major protection any longer.

2) Continued on with teaching? Why wouldn't they?

3) The Order of the Phoenix = Anti-Voldemort organization. With Voldemort gone, the organization has no purpose and thus disbands. The Weasleys probably mourn the losses felt, but move on with their lives.

4) Aurors? Normal people? Who knows. Again, with Voldemort gone, the only job Harry ever wanted probably became meaningless. How many Dark Wizards would there be with the fall of Voldemort, after all?

5) Me too.

@Hallows: Harry had all three as he approached Voldemort in the forest, therefore making him the Master of Death. You knew he didn't die for a reason, right? With the stone, the cloak, and the wand all in his "command", he possessed the rights to all three Hallows and thus became the Master of Death, giving him the choice of whether to die or to live without the part of Voldemort's soul in him.

@Snape: It was obvious he wasn't. Dumbledore had faith in him throughout every book.

@Kreacher: He was in the movie. Not really shown a lot, but he was in the movie.

@Mirror: Simple. "Sirius wanted you to have this."

Well, by the Order of the Phoenix, I didn't mean the group itself, but rather what became of the members. As for the Weasleys, it's got much more interest into it than you made it out to. For example, with the ministry crumbled, what happens to Mr. Weasley? Obviously the Ministry will be rebuilt, where will his new job lie? Did George continue with his shop, or move onto something else? Was Bill made to have more werewolf tendencies? Was George ever married? I'd also have liked to know more about Luna Lovegood. As for the professors, I should have been more clear, I would like to know which one became Headmaster, etc. Basically I was hoping J.K. Rowling would go more in depth on the aftermath of everything, rather than an Epilogue that seemed more like fan fiction than part of the novel to me.

As for Harry's job, an Auror would still be viable, I suppose. There will always be Dark Wizards. Saying "How many Dark Wizards would there be with the fall of Voldemort, after all?" is like saying "How many communists will there be now that Marx is dead?"

Also, with the Hallows, I just put together that when he died he was already in control of the Wand. I guess I didn't think about how long ago he had won over Malfoy's wand.

As for the movie, I never saw Kreecher, so I guess I missed something. I'll have to go again I suppose. As far as the mirror, I suppose they could make Kreecher present to him on Sirius's orders. ("If I die, give Harry this mirror, blablablabla")

With Snape, I was hoping that Dumbledore was wrong, effectively making him less omniscient than he seemed. Paired along with the fact of him wanting the Hallows for personal reasons and his former interest in controlling Muggles, I think it wasn't out of the question.

[Soujiro_The_Tenkan]

he was not the master of death at the time for you must be possesing all 3 at all times including the wand he was not infact if you didnt know harry didnt die because he was a horcrux and hit by a spell powerful enough to kill the soul inside him but keep his own soul intact. at no point did he ever use the 3 hallows all at once that is why dumbledoor had that part to explain it all

[flawofhumanity]

Originally Posted by Soujiro_The_Tenkan

he was not the master of death at the time for you must be possesing all 3 at all times including the wand he was not infact if you didnt know harry didnt die because he was a horcrux and hit by a spell powerful enough to kill the soul inside him but keep his own soul intact. at no point did he ever use the 3 hallows all at once that is why dumbledoor had that part to explain it all

The wand was his as soon as he stole Malfoy's wand.

[Soujiro_The_Tenkan]

im saying u have to be holding them to use them because if you could use them without them in your posession then why wasnt james saved.voldemort killed them and stillned the cloak but dumbledoor had it at the time it is obvious that harry wasnt killed due to the fact he was a horecrux or some sort you have to read it over trust me plus im sure to use the hallows you have to be damn well sure you know you own all of them and harry didnt figure out the wand was completely his until after his talk with dumbledoor and when he was facing volemort to hear how he got it god ffr u cant edit what your saying worth a dam
Edit* for the first line james was the owner of the cloak when voldemort came to ill him but he didnt have it with him yet he still died proving you need to have them when you use them and to have the affect of them

[flawofhumanity]

James didn't own the other two, and you have to own all three to be "The Master of Death." It makes it very clear of that, I don't see how you missed it. And out of curiosity, if you think that the Hallows played no part in Harry staying alive through Voldemort's curse, what was the purpose of them being in the book at all, or even letting Harry obtain all 3?

[Soujiro_The_Tenkan]

ok read up on the cloak then the shielder of spells and death! im not saying you had to possess all 3 when i stated it but james shouldnt have died. the point of the hallows in the book was to set out to gain control fo them but harry dying didnt mean anything with the hallows. he lived through the curse due to his willingness to die for the sake of weakening voldemort to protect his friends. you know that deep magic that you cant explain? which you should have heard plenty of if you read the whole book. the hallows were for the victory harry never became the master of death because he never truly died. he was just losing voldemorts attached soul thats what the grotesque thign was lying on the ground during hsi talk with dumbledoor he was at the so called gate to the next world.

[Afrobean]

If the Elder Wand was truly unbeatable how did Dumbledore defeat Grindelwald? Did I miss something?

As for the mirror missing from the film: it doesn't even matter at all. Harry returns to house numerous times he could get it at any point (so long as it is before he finds that Aberforth has come into possession of the other one). Him getting it from Sirius is irrelevant because in the end, the other half falls into the ownership of Aberforth, regardless of the fact that Sirius had given Harry the first half as a means of possible communication. The only thing I can figure as to why it was given to him from Sirius is to tug at the idea of communication beyond the grave (or rather, the veil?). I never really thought Sirius was absolutely "dead", but rather in another place... guess it doesn't really matter either way.

Really, they left a lot of things out of the movie, but it can easily be written over without changing the ending result. This should be obvious to anyone who has seen the movies and read the books... the movies are riddled with things having been changed and removed, yet the overall feel and message holds true, even when possibly large things are neglected.

Also, I agree about the epilogue... wasn't really needed at all. It didn't answer any questions that needed to be answered. It felt more like Rowling saying "ok look that was their last adventure... see it is 19 years later and this is what it is" Sort of a cop-out to say "no more stories from Harry Potter".

Let's see what else do I need to say...

The movie... it's not gonna be very good methinks. Think of all the things they left out of Order of the Phoenix. I'd almost say I'd bet on them cutting out large sections, such as the breaking into Gringotts or the breaking into the Ministry, and they'd just make them find Hufflepuff's cup another way and get the locket from Umbridge in a quicker and easier fashion (ambushing her house should have been easy enough with the cloak...). Really, as the books went from the size of, say, Philosopher's Stone, to, say, Goblet of Fire, the movies don't feel like they translate quite so well, although I must admit that Goblet of Fire translated better than Order of the Phoenix did.

ps my understanding as to why Harry hadn't died was similar to the reason why he hadn't died the first time. Sort of crappy explanation, but it was almost like he had given himself in the same way his mother had given herself. Also consider: it was the cursed accidental horcrux scar that really was hit. I don't think the master of death arguement holds that well... yes the wand was "his" but wands work like that. Part of wandlore or some malarky. Not all magical objects follow the same rules of ownership... this resurrection stone doesn't "choose" it's master like a wand does.

[flawofhumanity]

Well, I figured the Hallows were all his, thus making him the master of death because otherwise there's really no point at all to having them in the story. They really did or added nothing otherwise, except an extra storyline that ended with nothing extra to the overall plot. The only thing they did besides "saving Harry" if that is in fact what they did is show that Dumbledore wasn't perfect. Also, I viewed the King's Cross event as Harry being in a kind of "limbo" speaking to Dumbledore.

[Afrobean]

King's Cross was all in his head.

Whether it was his imagination of Dumbledore talking with him or the actual influence of the dead man infiltrating his mind isn't entirely clear, but it was definitely all in his own head.

[Tails99]

The battle itself could probably be a half-hour long in the movie version, seeing as there is so much stuff happening on SO many levels.

They should have also revealed who else died in the battle, besides the ones revealed who had plot elements in the story.

Originally Posted by Soujiro_The_Tenkan

ok read up on the cloak then the shielder of spells and death! im not saying you had to possess all 3 when i stated it but james shouldnt have died. the point of the hallows in the book was to set out to gain control fo them but harry dying didnt mean anything with the hallows. he lived through the curse due to his willingness to die for the sake of weakening voldemort to protect his friends. you know that deep magic that you cant explain? which you should have heard plenty of if you read the whole book. the hallows were for the victory harry never became the master of death because he never truly died. he was just losing voldemorts attached soul thats what the grotesque thign was lying on the ground during hsi talk with dumbledoor he was at the so called gate to the next world.

No. No, no no no. Remember the face-off in the school at the end. Harry explains(spoiler time) that the death was pre-arranged by Snape and Dumbledore. Voldemort only selcted how he died, and nothing else. Veldemort did not directly kill Dumbledore, so he had to kill Snape. The job was meant for Draco, so apparently, when Dumbledore died, DRACO became the owner of the Elder Wand. Fast forward to the drawing room scene, particularly the escape, Harry took Bellatrix's and Draco's wand, though Draco lost his one from Ollivander, the fact that he trumped Draco for possesion of his wand made him rightful owner of the Elder Wand. Not Snape. Not Voldemort. Not anyone else. Harry.


Ps.

NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH

[esupin]

Originally Posted by Tails99

Ps.

I loled at that part. Kinda unrealistic, but funny. I thought that the ending was a bit too deus ex machina like, though. Otherwise, no complaints. Well, maybe a longer epilogue.

[Squeek]

There's a flaw in your theory, Soujiro.

Harry's protection of everyone else was indeed the same protection his mother gave him. Willing to die to save others protects them.

Here's your flaw: his mother actually died.

Why then, did Harry live? Was it because Voldemort only killed the piece of his own soul instead of Harry, or was it because he was the Master of Death?

The latter is easier to believe, but both are plausible. Why do I believe the latter? Because he had the right to choose whether to die or to live at the King's Cross.

[Shashakiro]

Um, didn't Harry survive because Voldemort used his blood to resurrect himself, therefore keeping a part of Harry inside himself and making it impossible for Voldemort to kill him? Thus Dumbledore's gleam of triumph in Book 4, etc etc...

That's what I understood, anyway...

[Hayden_444]

i have a question because im to lazy to read the book and this thread dose harry die?

[dore]

Originally Posted by Shashakiro

Um, didn't Harry survive because Voldemort used his blood to resurrect himself, therefore keeping a part of Harry inside himself and making it impossible for Voldemort to kill him? Thus Dumbledore's gleam of triumph in Book 4, etc etc...

That's what I understood, anyway...

yeah

The best line in the book was "Oh look, a Blibbering Humdinger!"

My major qualms with the book were the way they portrayed Dumbledore and Snape. For 6 books Dumbledore was the goodness of the world, and an unbeatable force of morality, and then all of the sudden he has this dark side that all comes out at the end of the book. Same with Snape, he was evil-appearing throughout the entire series, kills Dumbledore, and oh by the way it was all because he loved Lily Evans. Both characters acted rather stereotypically throughout the entire series, and then in the last book they all of the sudden are completely different. I know that not all characters can be static and one-sided, but Rowling should've foreshadowed their true personalities as they come out at the end of the book.

Once I reread this I'm sure I'll catch a few more of the subtleties that I missed, maybe that'll change my mind on that.

I think the Battle of Hogwarts will be really epic on-screen; honestly, I hope that they do split up the movie so that they can devote 45+ minutes on that scene (sup ending of LotR 2).

The most disappointing part of the book was the epilogue, I hope Rowling writes an extended epilogue of some sort because that was just pitiful, it didn't tell you anything you didn't already know. The only surprise in the entire thing was Albus Severus Potter.