Harry Potter 7(Don't click if you are planning on reading the book - SPOILERS)

[Higgs Boson]

WARNING: Massive spoilers ahead.

 [spoiler For More Caution]First off, is it just me, or would that last battle not be awesome in a movie? I mean, come on. Who doesn't want to see 200 house elves charging in ragged clothes all screaming? And that scene where the Elder wand flips out of Voldemort's hand in mid-Avada Kedavra and then rebounding on him. Second, did George die? Cause once it started to get near the end, he just dropped out of the story completely. And finally, on Fred dying, you just don't go and kill off your comic relief! What were your guys's problems/likings with the book? Personally, I thought it was the best one yet. [/spoiler]

[Ishmayl-Retired]

Voran, I appreciate your caution.  I'm sure you realize there are many people on this site who plan on reading the book as soon as they can get their hands on a copy (including myself).  I made your spoiler warnings a tad more obvious.  I would also like to take this moment to mention here, in public, that if anyone on this site spoils this book for me, there will be Hell To Pay.  The Opal Council has spoken.  Don't frak with me on this. ;)

[SA]

[spoiler=Seriously, keep away]Considering the (purported) fact that the plot was already written out before the movies were even considered, the cinematic adaptability of the final battle is entirely the director's problem.  I'm sure we can all agree that Rowling needn't make any narrative concessions for the sake of a the cinematic adaptation [coff]Hannibal Rising[/coff]; besides which, if they can't figure out a way to make the climax succeed onscreen, then they've hired the wrong director.

As for Fred dying, I think a surefire way to remind the audience that the circumstances are dire is to dispense with a beloved character.  Cedric, Sirius, Dumbledore, Fred; all of these deaths serve (among other things) to say "War is not nice, or fair, or just.  People don't survive because you want them to."

What I admire about the Harry Potter books is the fact that as the series progresses it becomes less and less like a fairytale.  The innocent wonder we experience earlier in the saga is eventually supplanted by the realisation that this miraculous world is driven by the same basic realities - by turns vile and noble - of human experience.  Voldemort himself - the most feared wizard ever to have existed - is ultimately motivated by the infantile fear of his own ignominious death, while the fanaticism that inspires his human followers is as mundane as that of any muggle.

And the people who oppose him know the score: many of them will die, and the rest will be scarred.

[spoiler=Delving deeper]Consider that wizards are by and large complicit in the slavery of house elves, as well as racism and bigotry against muggles and various subhumans.  To say nothing of legal penalties worse than death (soul-sucking dementors), a bureaucracy as self-serving as any we are acquainted with, and a monopolised media with little interest in objectivity.  Seriously, even without Voldemort around the wizarding world is far from safe.  Like any human culture, it is its own worst enemy.[/spoiler]
But what about Snape?  He is by far my favourite character, and what I find interesting is the fact that his noble actions were motivated by the very same force that defended Harry against Tom in the first place: the love of Lily Potter.

And the movie is so totally not going to be kid-friendly...[/spoiler]

[Wensleydale]

[spoiler]I thought there were way, way, way, way, way too many deaths. Way. I mean, yes, kill off a beloved character, but... remove Fred's ear and kill George, or the other way around? This is supposed to still be primarily a children's series... you can't just change to adult mid-series. And the movie is, as you put it, SO NOT GOING TO BE KID-FRIENDLY.

Also, I think Mad-Eye's still alive. It mentioned, on a scene in diagon alley, one beggar having a bandage over one eye. And the rotating eye may have been stolen, but we never actually heard of mad-eye's death...[/spoiler]

[Moniker]

I strongly disagree with this being a "children's series". The stories at the time were marketed for eleven year olds. The books have been written and staggered for publishing to become more mature as the readers themselves grow up (much like Harry does in the series). Thus, the stories become more adult as its readers grow older.

I think it's marketing genius.

[Atlantis]

[spoiler]well if mad eye didnt die they wolud clarify that in the end but seeing as they didnt, he is dead [/spoiler]

[Higgs Boson]

[spoiler]Authors dont need to clarify everything. In fact, many of them leave things like this for us to wonder about on purpose, so I wouldn't be suprised if that beggar was him.[/spoiler]

[Ishmayl-Retired]

[spoiler]
First of all, to one of the questions asked above, George is (or, should be) still alive.  It mentioned him "cradling Fred's head" after Fred's death, and his death was never mentioned afterwards, so I imagine he's alive.

The book was pretty dark, and she definitely took some tips from Williams and Tolkien on the whole "Don't be afraid to kill off people" thing.  I loved what ended up being the final word on Snape.  I always believed that his purpose was much more important than just a traitor and Death Eater.

Anyway, I have little to say about the story as a whole.  Mrs Weasley's battle with Bellatrix (sp?) was pretty good, and the very last battle scene (and monologue) between Potter and Riddle was very well done.

Good book.

[/spoiler]

[Higgs Boson]

Yay! Ishmayl has finished, meaning we can live without fear of being banned! (You know, if he accidently clicked on the spoiler, or somethinhg)

[Ishmayl-Retired]

I would still appreciate all discussion on this book being carried out in spoilers :)  I'd hate for it to be ruined for anyone else.

[Stargate525]

[spoiler=get of mah propertah!]I just finished the book. Definitely her best.

First off, she killed WAY too many people. After the second one it seemed more like a game of 'cleanup of the under-used support cast.' Was it just me, or did alot of the book seem to be a clipshow of the previous six? Many of characters we haven't seen since books one or two come back, locations are revisited, etc. It was the first book that actually beat me to its conclusions; usually I can figure them out earlier, so that was quite a nice surprise.

She left herself open for a new series; I want to hear what happens to Albus damnit!

Oh yeah, and now that there are actual dates, book seven happens in the years 1997-1998.[/spoiler]

[Higgs Boson]

[spoiler]Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing another storyline. I'vereally enjoyed the books. I laughed at that last part, when Ron is like "Beat him on [ievery[/i] test" referring to his daughter and Scorpius. (Why do the Malfoys all need to have such weird names? Maybe some hag cursed them so that if they don't name their sons weird stuff the world goes boom?)[/spoiler]

[Atlantis]

[spoiler] [blockquote Voran Illezou]Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing another storyline. I'vereally enjoyed the books. I laughed at that last part, when Ron is like "Beat him on [ievery[/i] test" referring to his daughter and Scorpius. (Why do the Malfoys all need to have such weird names?)[/blockquote] I think its cuz most of the people in slytherin have weird names, besides, Scorpius is a cool name [/spoiler]

[Stargate525]

[spoiler]All the names at the end really started annoying me though, there were, what, eight kids running around?[/spoiler]

[SDragon]

Stargate: Agreed. [spoiler=Besides...]Albus Severus Potter? OK, I can certainly understand the signifigance of being named after two Hogwarts headmasters, but... Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, now does it? Well, maybe off the parseltongue, but I digress...[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Sir Vorpal]
I think it's a pureblood thing. Yeah, I know, Draco wasn't the muggle-hater he used to be, but as a Malfoy, he still seemed to have a certain sense of family honor. Scorpius sounds very much like a "Malfoy" name.[/spoiler]

[spoiler= On a related note...]
Did anybody else notice how all the families seemed to be related somehow?
[spoiler=To note]
* Gaunts and Potters both come from a Perevell line
* Arthur Weasley's mother's maiden name was Black
* Gaunts were descended from Slytherin[/spoiler]

Also, looking at the Black family tree on wikipedia, I found the following [spoiler=names]
* Sirius Black (of course)
* Bellatrix Black (married to a LeStrange)
* Andromeda Black (married to Ted Tonks)
* Narcissa Black (married to Lucius Malfoy)
* Septimus Weasley (married to Cedrella Black, son named Arthur)

And references to the names Potter, Crabbe, Longbottom, Yaxley, Macmillan, and others.[/spoiler]

In other words, whether through blood or marriage, there's relatively few characters that aren't somehow related to a bunch of other characters.[/spoiler]