Why do a lot of people think Hagrid's going 2 B the one who "Snuffs it"?

[nobodysrib]

No: HPFGUIDX 53681

Richelle gave a great list for why Hagrid is a 'death-candidate', 
including: 
> 4)Robbie Coltrane was asked once if he was signed up for all seven 
movies like 
> Richard Harris was, his response was "sort of."  Said he'd signed 
up for the 
> first five.  Hmm.

Since the movie has already been brought up, I'll go one step further 
with that.  I believe that changes (in the movies) that stray from 
the original plot happen for one of two reasons: either the plot is 
too intricate/detailed to be portrayed on screen (ex: changes in how 
Draco discovers Norbert in SS) or changing the movie actually, in the 
long run, makes it more true-to-the-books.  In the second case, 
sometimes themes, relationships, and ideas are developed subtely and 
gradually throughout a book, but there isn't time for this to happen 
in the movie and thus it's given to the audience in one large punch.

I'm directly referring to the standing ovation given to Hagrid at the 
end of the (movie) CoS.  I can't help but think that since we were 
not given time to develop as deep of a Harry-Hagrid relationship 
(compared to the books), the CoS standing-o was an attempt to make us 
bond with Hagrid more - or, at the least, help us to see that he is a 
cherished staple at Hogwarts, and thus eventually understand the 
significance of his death.

GlumPlum wrote: 

> The second point I wanted to make is about Hagrid's narrative 
> function. Hagrid's main role has been as Harry's (and our) guide to 
> the magical world. 	

I agree, and would add on to that that this is a time when Harry (and 
all of the WW) are entering new terrain.  They don't know what lies 
ahead of them, and Harry, always a key player, especially doesn't 
know where his path will lead him.  Symbolically, it makes sense to 
me that the most nurturing of his previous guides is taken away from 
him.  

I also think it would be interesting if Harry, during 
whatever "quest" he  attempts (and most likely completes), is given 
the opportunity to save Hagrid, but, for the sake of accomplishing 
his task, chooses not to save Hagrid.  For example: Both Hagrid and 
the entire fate of the WW are hanging from a cliff.  Harry can save 
only one of the two groups.  He chooses the rest of the WW, but must 
then watch Hagrid plummet to his death.  (Obviously, I don't think 
this specific scenario will happen.  I just used it to illustrate my 
point.)

GlumPlum then wrote, in another post:

> This book [OoP] is the logical place for Voldemort to attack 
> Dumbledore's close circle.

Again, I agree.  JKR noted that in order for us to see the depth of 
V's wrath, we need to see important characters die.  I add on to 
this, that we must see degrees of important characters die.  (If 
Dumbledore, say, were killed by Voldemort in OoP, there 
would be no one else - except Harry - that could die in the next 
three books that holds as great of significance.  Too quick of an 
action/tension peak also means that there's nowhere else to go but 
down.)  

According to my tea leaves, there will be many times in which 
we are left to think "could it possibly get any worse" and then we 
are shown just *how much* worse it can get:

GoF - Cedric dies.  He is an important character to that book, and 
readers get close to him, but it is only through one book that we are 
able to build a relationship with this character.  Also, tragic and 
sad as his death may be, Cedric's absence will not have a *great* 
impact on the readers, the WW, Hogwarts, or Harry, especially 
compared to those who may die in the future.

(predicting future deaths):
OoP - Hagrid dies.  Great emotional significance to Harry, but not 
much of a change to the protection of Hogwarts or the WW.  If Hagrid 
dies at V's (or a V-servant's) hands, this also shows that V's power 
is growing, and perhaps has already eclipsed his VWI power-peak.  
(Hagrid is Dumbledore's most trusted friend; V-forces being able to 
get close enough to Hagrid to kill him - and then being able to 
actually kill him - also has great symblic significance.)

Book 6: I'm stumped on this one.  I want it to be someone like Sirius 
Black, except I love him too much to kill him off for speculation's 
sake.  But I think this death will be one that effects Harry 
emotionally - as well as it being more dangerous for Harry now that 
this person isn't around to help and protect him.  Also, a 
character's death isn't specifically needed here, but I do think that 
this book will have the bleakest ending, ala The Empire Strikes Back, 
and an easy way to accomplish this is through a character dying.  
(Lucius Malfoy or someone equally dark taking over as over Hogwarts 
headmaster is another way, but without further evidence I emotionally 
can't speculate on this.  Not yet...  but... there has been much 
mentioned about how Hogwarts was one of the only safe havens during 
VWI, which only leads me to believe that it eventually will *not* be 
a safe haven during VWII. <shudder>)

Book 7: Dumbledore (in the middle of the book - or, at least, not at 
the very end.)  This could also happen at the end of Book 6, in 
that tragic "will the world now be permanently cast in shadow"/"is 
there any reason left to have hope?" way.  I think that for all of 
the reasons that Hagrid dies, we also *sniff, sniff* have to have 
Dumbledore die.

- Nobody's Rib