I CAN'T WAIT FOR PART 2!!!!!

I've got to say i lost pretty much every interest in Harry Potter after the last movie.

I've got to say i lost pretty much every interest in Harry Potter after the last movie.

Why was that, Rilian The Disenchanted?

Interest just declined every year. I haven't read the books in 3 years. Was very much disappointed by the 7th book and the movie wasn't that good as well. More political than anything else. I love the magic and colour of the first ones. The seventh book was filled wit deus ex machina, they always use Polyjuice Potion, to get into the Ministry, to get into Gingrots bank. Just lame, they're is a spell for practically everything!

Wow. Seriously? The final book was the best of the lot and the most recent movie was either the best HP movie so far, or the second best (far better than the VDT movie). Yes, they have spells for many things but they still had to struggle against evil on their own and with friends. I don't remember any of the HP books being all that political and you can't fault a series for growing darker as it progresses. That's the nature of the story. There need to be real stakes.

More political than anything else. I love the magic and colour of the first ones. The seventh book was filled wit deus ex machina, they always use Polyjuice Potion, to get into the Ministry, to get into Gingrots bank. Just lame, they're is a spell for practically everything!

Well, that comes up in every single book...and most fantasy books and movies, really. It's a critical element of the storyline that you just have to suspend disbelief for. For instance, that Time Turner widget that Hermione uses in PoA could be used to solve thousands of the Wizarding World's problems. Why isn't that used more?

Because, guess what, according to the books, the timeturners were destroyed in OOTP when the gang of six, ie Harry, Ron and Hermione, plus Neville Longbottom, Ginny Weasley and Luna Lovegood, invaded and trashed the time room in the Department of Mysteries.

In HBP Hermione even references this to explain why neither she nor Ron and Harry were down for Hagrid's Care of Magical Creatures classes post OWLS. In my humble opinion, not that I like to say so on Narniaweb , the time turner device was a stopgap measure which was cumbersome at best and unworkable in the long run. Has anyone, including NarniaWeb members, ever tried to be at two places at once?

I guess that in the Wizarding world there really is a spell for practically everything. And so, until HPDH part 2, next July, I propose to suspend disbelief.

It doesn't matter that the Harry Potter books are careful enough to mention that the Time Turners were destroyed later. The ability to travel through time, alter things and not rip the space-time continuum apart as Harry and Hermione did in PoA is the most powerful ability in the universe, if used correctly.

Come to think of it, Felix Felicis (liquid luck) would be too.

But this is J. K. Rowling's world, and she can invent any kind of magic she wants. That's sort of the point of "fantasy". That was my point, in response to Rilian's original quip with Deathly Hallows. Having problems with physics and the physical properties of everything in fantasy books is silly. I agree with you on this point, wagga, I'm willing to suspend disbelief as well.

Why would you even give characters magical powers if you had no intention of letting them use then? I don't see how this is deus ex machina either. These are established spells that have been in use in the books for most of the series. At the moment, I can't think of a single spell or potion in Deathly Hallows that wasn't used in previous novels. It's not like Hermione suddenly developed the power to deflect the Killing Curse or Apparate through Hogwart's wardings. That's deus ex machina, abilities randomly appearing from nowhere that violate previously stated rules about how magic works in the series.

Harry Potter that was a clear deus ex machina.
Every book had something fresh and the 7th lacked in that. And how Voldemort was pretty simple too. When i first finished the 7th book, i though Rowling was really lazy. She probably thought whatever the quality of the book, it will sell millions anyway.

I'm hearing you but I just don't see anything there as being a problem. Also, Book 7 is far from lazy but yes, just like the other thick books (although to a lesser extent), the writing could've been tightened up a little more. Rowling doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would do that. I'm not going to pretend she can't do any wrong (she's only human after all) but from reading biographies and such, you can tell the books are intensely personal works for her and that she doesn't care for the media.
Also Book 7 had something fresh - the time was largely spent away from Hogwarts. I see that we're not going to be able to convince you but that's okay. Just out of curiousity, how would you write Book 7? What would you include/not include? Thanks

I agree with Warrior4Jesus on this one. I have read quite a few biographys on Rowling also. I personally enjoy books that have details so I didn't mind DH going on.

I'm hearing you but I just don't see anything there as being a problem. Also, Book 7 is far from lazy but yes, just like the other thick books (although to a lesser extent), the writing could've been tightened up a little more. Rowling doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would do that. I'm not going to pretend she can't do any wrong (she's only human after all) but from reading biographies and such, you can tell the books are intensely personal works for her and that she doesn't care for the media.
Also Book 7 had something fresh - the time was largely spent away from Hogwarts. I see that we're not going to be able to convince you but that's okay. Just out of curiousity, how would you write Book 7? What would you include/not include? Thanks

I'm not a writer by any means,
I haven't read Rowling's biographies or any biography in fact. But it would be strange if there would be anything bad about her in those books. Biographies tend to focus on the positive sides of a person, certainly if it's written by that person herself.

I hope that makes sense

Rilian,I think you should read this explanation by Rowling on

[spoiler=]In many ways it would have been a neater ending to kill him. For sure, I knew that all along. felt that the books' overriding message was that love is the most powerful force in this world. My model with Harry really was war veterans, who have seen horrors and are asked to go home and rebuild, and go back to ordinary life and care for a family, be a father - particularly be a father - [it is] a difficult job, in troubled times. I felt it would be a betrayal of my character if I did anything other than show him doing that. And I think it's an absolutely heroic thing to do, to go home after that, not to become a mercenary, not to live forever frozen in a time of excitement and danger, but to be mentally strong enough, to an extent physically strong enough, to return from war and to raise a new generation with values that you hope will not lead to another war. That's massive.

Of course you can say, yes, to an extent, as ever in life, that's the eternal paradox. What's is most worthwhile may well be seen as slightly dull, but God knows without those people who were prepared to come home and raise the family and rebuild, help rebuild... rebuilding is much more difficult than destroying. So, I felt it was almost a cop-out, morally, to kill him. I wanted to show a man who, yeah, he went back and got his hands dirty and tried to rebuild. I liked that. And again, it made a lot of people were livid, but God knows by that time I was used to that by then!
(from http://harryahistory.com/2008/10/on-har ... vival.html )[/spoiler]

Personally,