'Deathly Hallows' will leave fans eager for finale

Oooooh, can't wait!

You mean Deathly Hallows isn't the finale? Cripes.

I can't stand cliffhangers, so I probably will wait to watch after they're both already out on DVD, haha.

I will wait for the Blue-ray HD 3D version, thank you.

Is this overblown franchise still going?

Overblown franchise? Millions of people would disagree with you based on book and ticket sales. But you can rest easy knowing that after July there shouldn't be any more new "Potter" movies. Rowling has said she's satisfied with how the series ended and hasn't planned on writing any more.

Last 2 movies sound good but not happy with some of the changes they made.

Atleast we won't get Harry Potter 5 and Harry Potter vs x, prequels, sequels, etc which seems to be stable of Hollywood now.

You mean Deathly Hallows isn't the finale? Cripes.

Indeed Deathly Hallows is the final book in the series, but as stated above, it needs to be split into two parts in order to make it viable as a movie. Plus, they get more money for making two movies instead of just one.

IMO, some of the earlier movies should have also been split, they lost a lot of the story and feel of the Universe, plus many explanations that left viewers scratching their knoggins.

Ditto for the LOTR movies too much was left out(Tom Bombatil, etc) and Moria(major important part) got reduced to a few short minutes. When it nearly covered 1/3 of one of the 6 books in the Trilogy.

@Zenny11:

Nah, even three movies was about 2 movies too many for that rubbish.

Like many series they take their time to get ito the swing.

Look at Dune, the movie is based on the 1st book and one of the weakest stories of the series.

But agree the early Harry Potter movies are bad compared to the books and I also hate the LOTR movies compared to the books.

Many of those movies simply assume you read the books and know the details they left out.

And that is where the lost(did I get it right) the casual viewer.

It can't be as bad as Goblet of Fire. What a horrible movie that was.

Let's see if Yates can make a good "split end" hehe.

I've seen all the Harry Potter films, the one that I hated the most was "prisoner of Azkaban" (I loved the book) Cuarón was extremely dissapointing with some escenas that supposedly were funny but they weren't and many superfluous stuff that could be left out... The only good thing in that one was Dumbledore, because I liked him better than Richard Harris

Idano about ole HP and HoggyWarts. I mean, Dumbledore is killed by falling out a window ? How lame is that ? Not much of a wizard not to be able to cushion his fall. HP has sucked since the first two when there was some innocence to them.

IIRC, Dumbledore gets killed by that insta-death spell. Any falling would have been done after he was already dead.

"It can't be as bad as Goblet of Fire"

I tried to to stay awake to watch that but I didn't last more than 20 minutes. What a snoozefest.

Snape kills Dumbledore and yes Dumbledore dies instantly.

Dumbledore was dying already anyway.

Yes yes yes, I can't wait until this crappy movie, series and storyline is over. No more simplesnore and dimple dore NO MORE. "Dungeons & Dragons" saturday morning cartoon was much more cool than this crap served on a platter.

Harry Potthead is a snoozedore !!!!

If you haven't got kids who are going to force you to go see it with them, I don't see what anyone has to complain about. If it isn't your thing, leave it be.

But I wonder how long it will survive, compared say with Tolkien. It seems to me that kids get into Harry Potter obsessively, and then grow out of it pretty quick, and once they are out of it, have no interest in further books or films.

I stopped at half blood Prince

Read the books; don't see the movies. It is an insult to your imagination.

I personally can't wait for Friday! If you couldn't tell.

This has been an extremely successful series of films. Movies almost -never- accurately translate a novel ... and, being a totally different kind of medium, maybe they shouldn't try for that degree of "perfection". Film tells a story in a different way than print ; artistically it's a "different language".

Clearly the movie patrons aren't "insulted". They've made the producers very rich, and Rowling even richer. I expect both the books and films will stand the test of time.

And the BEST thing about the films is that they've maintained that particularly British institution of horrific 'kiddie' stories. Each one is darker than its predecessor. An American treatment of the stories would have coated them with a thick layer of sugar and cute-ness and sucked out every trace of moral complexity and ambiguity - yuk !