[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
Yeah, audio books are great. The reader’s name is Stephen Fry, he is a well-known actor and author in England. Also Hugh Laurie’s best friend.
[/quote]
The guy on the audio books I listened to was Jim Dale. Apparently, Dale performed for the U.S. versions of the books and Fry did it for the U.K. publisher.
What do you all think. Is the 19 year post-script where everyone in the wizarding world is enjoying peace and prosperity be the end all? Or could-should this story continue on with Harry and Rons’ kids meeting some sort of evil at Hogwarts and immersing us in a whole new adventure be the plan? Maybe an “Origin” trilogy that follows snape and james and lilly and serius through school, the creation of Tom Riddle into Voldemort, the Malfoy-Black-Lestrange story line… then ending with Voldemort trying to wax Harry?
I don’t think anything new will be as good as the original 7, and all the origin materiel is sprinkled throughout the books already.
Hard to say.
I think any sort of prequels would be a terrible idea. There is enough back story already described in the books that you couldn’t really come up with a new, high quality story line without fucking up everything else. Look what they did with Star Wars. They took an interesting concept for the back story that everyone had already been imagining in their own heads, but when they tried to make a whole saga out of it, it created too many plot holes in the original saga and, IMO, devalued the quality of the whole series.
Rowling is already so rich she wouldn’t need to make any new stories, and she’d be wise not to tarnish the legacy.
If anything, I think there could be some interesting stories that occurred after the 7th book. For example, they could make a new series where aurors are hunting down the surviving death eaters. The original stories, seem to compare to Nazi Germany (Voldemort wanting to exterminate muggles to preserve a master race of wizards), so a follow up mimicking stories of Nazi hunters and the aftermath of WW2 could be interesting. Maybe something similar to the “Boys From Brazil” storyline… I don’t know, these are just rambling ideas that might actually suck…
ive read every book atleast 5 times, the movie was fuckin aweesome
[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?
Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]
Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.
It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?
Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]
Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.
It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]
Damn Dixie you have spent some time with these books. Almost makes me want to read them.
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?
Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]
Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.
It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]
Damn Dixie you have spent some time with these books. Almost makes me want to read them.[/quote]
You should.
They may not be the most brilliantly written books ever, but the story is fairly well thought-out and entertainingly told. If you read them with that in mind they are quite enjoyable.
These books can stand with Narnia and Lord of the Rings.
[quote]OsakaNate wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?
Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]
Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.
It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]
Damn Dixie you have spent some time with these books. Almost makes me want to read them.[/quote]
You should.
They may not be the most brilliantly written books ever, but the story is fairly well thought-out and entertainingly told. If you read them with that in mind they are quite enjoyable.
These books can stand with Narnia and Lord of the Rings.
[/quote]
The thing that makes them so amazing is, like you said, the well thought out story. I am astonished at how well Rowling developed the characters and the entire wizarding world. It is so in depth and meticulously calculated. The actualy writing style may not be anything to talk about, but the story and character development is. Reminds me a bit of star wars in that sense
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?
Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]
Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.
It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]
Damn Dixie you have spent some time with these books. Almost makes me want to read them.[/quote]
haha as mentioned earlier little brother and sister who loved em, and I grew up with em.
This particular plot point is one we hammered out for a while, cause we were very confused when we first read it.
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?
Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]
Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.
It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]
Damn Dixie you have spent some time with these books. Almost makes me want to read them.[/quote]
haha as mentioned earlier little brother and sister who loved em, and I grew up with em.
This particular plot point is one we hammered out for a while, cause we were very confused when we first read it.
[/quote]
it’s ok to like HP
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?
Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]
Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.
It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]
deep shit! but good explanation. my only question is though… once the snake is killed, voldemort just disintegrates, i assume because all the horcrux’s are gone. So once voldemort dies, why wouldn’t harry die as his one and only horcrux is gone? Or was it harry’s little red lightening bolt from his wand that actually killed voldemort and it had nothing to do with all the horcrux’s being gone?
[quote]TRTblastcruise wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?
Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]
Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.
It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]
deep shit! but good explanation. my only question is though… once the snake is killed, voldemort just disintegrates, i assume because all the horcrux’s are gone. So once voldemort dies, why wouldn’t harry die as his one and only horcrux is gone? Or was it harry’s little red lightening bolt from his wand that actually killed voldemort and it had nothing to do with all the horcrux’s being gone? [/quote]
The movie fucked up the ending.
Harry has no horcrux, his soul is intact.
Long story short, in the book, Voldemort attempts one final killing curse at Harry, but the Elder Wand refuses to kill its true master (Harry), and so the curse strikes Voldemort instead.
Summary of book ending - Battle of Hogwarts | Harry Potter Wiki | Fandom
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]TRTblastcruise wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?
Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]
Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.
It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]
deep shit! but good explanation. my only question is though… once the snake is killed, voldemort just disintegrates, i assume because all the horcrux’s are gone. So once voldemort dies, why wouldn’t harry die as his one and only horcrux is gone? Or was it harry’s little red lightening bolt from his wand that actually killed voldemort and it had nothing to do with all the horcrux’s being gone? [/quote]
The movie fucked up the ending.
Harry has no horcrux, his soul is intact.
Long story short, in the book, Voldemort attempts one final killing curse at Harry, but the Elder Wand refuses to kill its true master (Harry), and so the curse strikes Voldemort instead.
Summary of book ending - Battle of Hogwarts | Harry Potter Wiki | Fandom
[/quote]
Got it - I was also confused because when Harry and the girl he should have banged, Hermione, are searching for the tiara in the storage room, it seems to me that harry was not the one who de-wanded Malfoy, but it was either Ron or Hermione. Wasn’t the de-wanding of Malfoy the reason that Harry supposedly was the Elder wands true master? But it did not appear as if he was the one that actually dewanded Malfoy, or did I just not pay good enough attention?
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?
Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]
Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.
It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]
Damn Dixie you have spent some time with these books. Almost makes me want to read them.[/quote]
haha as mentioned earlier little brother and sister who loved em, and I grew up with em.
This particular plot point is one we hammered out for a while, cause we were very confused when we first read it.
[/quote]
I haven’t read any of the books, have seen all the movies. I thought that holding the Resurrection Stone in his hand right before the forest battle was what gave him the possibility of having the choice to “go back” at the waystation. If this is not the explanation, then what was the Resurrection Stone doing in this movie?
[quote]TRTblastcruise wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]TRTblastcruise wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?
Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]
Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.
It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]
deep shit! but good explanation. my only question is though… once the snake is killed, voldemort just disintegrates, i assume because all the horcrux’s are gone. So once voldemort dies, why wouldn’t harry die as his one and only horcrux is gone? Or was it harry’s little red lightening bolt from his wand that actually killed voldemort and it had nothing to do with all the horcrux’s being gone? [/quote]
The movie fucked up the ending.
Harry has no horcrux, his soul is intact.
Long story short, in the book, Voldemort attempts one final killing curse at Harry, but the Elder Wand refuses to kill its true master (Harry), and so the curse strikes Voldemort instead.
Summary of book ending - Battle of Hogwarts | Harry Potter Wiki | Fandom
[/quote]
Got it - I was also confused because when Harry and the girl he should have banged, Hermione, are searching for the tiara in the storage room, it seems to me that harry was not the one who de-wanded Malfoy, but it was either Ron or Hermione. Wasn’t the de-wanding of Malfoy the reason that Harry supposedly was the Elder wands true master? But it did not appear as if he was the one that actually dewanded Malfoy, or did I just not pay good enough attention? [/quote]
Harry took Malfoy’s wand at Malfoy Manor earlier in the book/Deathly Hallows pt 1
[quote]SuperFast wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?
Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]
Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.
It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]
Damn Dixie you have spent some time with these books. Almost makes me want to read them.[/quote]
haha as mentioned earlier little brother and sister who loved em, and I grew up with em.
This particular plot point is one we hammered out for a while, cause we were very confused when we first read it.
[/quote]
I haven’t read any of the books, have seen all the movies. I thought that holding the Resurrection Stone in his hand right before the forest battle was what gave him the possibility of having the choice to “go back” at the waystation. If this is not the explanation, then what was the Resurrection Stone doing in this movie?
[/quote]
The Resurrection Stone only brought back the shades of James, Lily, Sirius, and Remus. It doesnt actually bring people back from the dead.
The book went into more detail than the movie did. The shades went with him to Voldemort, shielding him from the dementors in the forest, encouraging him, and hiding him from the death eaters until he was ready to face his own death.
Gotta say, DH2 was a great film but part one was a far superior movie IMO. I know many people preferred the pace of the second flick but I really enjoyed the representation of the book that part one gave us. Certain scenes stand out in particular such as the tale of the three brothers, a masterfully woven animation sequence. The scene where Harry and Hermione share a dance in Ron’s absence was as intimate as anything I’ve ever scene portrayed on the screen.
They also did a great job of showing Ron’s journey as he became suspicious of Harry and Hermione, Rupert Grint is probably the best actor of the lot tbh.
I also grew up with the books, GoF was just released when a travelling book fair came to school when I was 11 and I picked up a random Harry Potter book to see what all the fuss was about. It was PoA and I completely fell in love with the world. Number three still remains my favourite book but the movies do seem to get better as they progress. i remember being very unimpressed with books 5 and 6 but 7 was a good read, if a little over complicated. Shitty ending IMO, would have been interesting to see what the ending to the series would have been if she wrote all seven before it became such a behemoth of a franchise
[quote]Jereth127 wrote:
Gotta say, DH2 was a great film but part one was a far superior movie IMO. I know many people preferred the pace of the second flick but I really enjoyed the representation of the book that part one gave us. Certain scenes stand out in particular such as the tale of the three brothers, a masterfully woven animation sequence. The scene where Harry and Hermione share a dance in Ron’s absence was as intimate as anything I’ve ever scene portrayed on the screen.
They also did a great job of showing Ron’s journey as he became suspicious of Harry and Hermione, Rupert Grint is probably the best actor of the lot tbh.
I also grew up with the books, GoF was just released when a travelling book fair came to school when I was 11 and I picked up a random Harry Potter book to see what all the fuss was about. It was PoA and I completely fell in love with the world. Number three still remains my favourite book but the movies do seem to get better as they progress. i remember being very unimpressed with books 5 and 6 but 7 was a good read, if a little over complicated. Shitty ending IMO, would have been interesting to see what the ending to the series would have been if she wrote all seven before it became such a behemoth of a franchise[/quote]
You’re right, I think Grint was the best actor of the trio. Bummer that from here on out if he choses to stay in film everyone is going to refer to him as Ron Weasley and not take him for who he is as an actor.
Not a bad movie - my little girls and I enjoyed it.
I know there was some controversy about the ending but good movie overall and a decent end to the series.
[quote]OsakaNate wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?
Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]
Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.
It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]
Damn Dixie you have spent some time with these books. Almost makes me want to read them.[/quote]
You should.
They may not be the most brilliantly written books ever, but the story is fairly well thought-out and entertainingly told. If you read them with that in mind they are quite enjoyable.
These books can stand with Narnia and Lord of the Rings.
[/quote]
Okay since I cannot really give an opinion cause I have never read Narnia or Harry Potter, however I have a very hard time putting those two on the same level as LOR. I have read LOR at least 6-7 times in my life and was first introduced to Tolken my Freshman year of HS. I am biased but to me he set the bar for fantasy.
How many people would put Narnia, Potter and LOR on the same level?