How in the world did Harry...(spoilers Deathly Hallows)

ZeroCDR

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
755
Just looked it up and wow. They really screwed that up. I think it would have been great on film. I really don't understand why they do shit like this.
It’s even more bizarre because the movie makes no clear attempt to reconcile any of these facts into the final duel, so it just looks like an amateur hour wizard is able to keep up with the most feared wizard of all time.

The train afterlife scene also turned revelatory insight on Dumbledore and how the hell did Harry just survive an AK to the face? into two dudes sitting on a bench for 5 minutes discussing nothing of note, and even confusing some of the audience into thinking Snape might be Harry’s dad.
 

captive

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,929
Houston
Just looked it up and wow. They really screwed that up. I think it would have been great on film. I really don't understand why they do shit like this.
yea that was the major problem with the ending. IIRC in the book Harry and Voldemort were inside the big common area and everyone had basically stopped fighting to watch them and Harry explains how he's going to lose.



also are we really spoiler tagging a 12 year old book and 8 year old movie?
 

DrForester

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,642
Do you think after they take a dump on the floor and disappear it that other people can still feel it? So they'd know when they'd stood in a pile of invisible shit.



God, that sounds like a convoluted mess. Did we even know at that point that Snape was actually a good guy super-secret triple agent?

No, in the books we dont learn about Snape's allegiances until the end. The whole things with portraits makes more sense in the books. The portrait of Sirius' ancestor had appeared in earlier books.
 

dots

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,309
how did harry kill voldemort in the book

since when does the spell that makes people drop their wand also kill them
 

AegonSnake

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,960
It’s even more bizarre because the movie makes no clear attempt to reconcile any of these facts into the final duel, so it just looks like an amateur hour wizard is able to keep up with the most feared wizard of all time.

The train afterlife scene also turned revelatory insight on Dumbledore and how the hell did Harry just survive an AK to the face? into two dudes sitting on a bench for 5 minutes discussing nothing of note, and even confusing some of the audience into thinking Snape might be Harry’s dad.
i remember reading somewhere that the train station scene in the books is actually meant to be a reconciliation of sorts between dumbledore and harry who had grown to resent him. apparently lots of stuff about dumbledore's past with grindlewald that was completely left out for some bizarre reason.

as a non book reader, i was like wtf is this scene about.
 
OP
OP
Zen

Zen

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,339
I view the movies as their own thing. The first film was what got me into the books anyway
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,806
England
but its not a quick woosh you are dead. the final confrontation is actually pretty great as Harry pretty much owns Voldermot by explaining to him how the elder wand doesnt belong to him and how voldermot is basically no match for harry.

much better than them two pointing at each other and then one guy wins because reasons.
Wasn't it more to do with the fact that Harry was master of the Elder Wand and it would never actually hurt him? So Harry played Voldemort like a fool, making him attack him with the killing curse (which would strike Voldemort instead) rather than a disarming spell or something less fatal?

I remember Voldemort used the killing curse on Harry earlier in the book and it didn't hurt Harry at all, only killing the horcrux inside of him.
 

Apath

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,031
The Deathly Hallows movies were actually so disappointing. They butchered the final fight so badly.
And not even in a “the books were better!” kind of way. Harry and Voldemort were straight up brawling like muggles, dueling like equals, and apparating all over Hogwarts.

Voldemort’s death was only witnessed by Harry and Voldemort’s body crumbled to ash. So, everyone just assumes Voldy is dead and doesn’t say anything to Harry?

I will say that the books were better in that Voldemort died from his own killing curse and died just like any normal person. He simply fell over dead; nothing special. He was even 70, which was an average life span.
 

Gustaf

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,248
so the sword appearing to a true gryffindor in need its bullshit? and its just snape throwing it in the pond?
 
OP
OP
Zen

Zen

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,339
I assume the sword would have appeared to Harry if he needed to pull it out of Hermione's bag or something with the horcrux opened. Which makes Snape having it pretty funny, although it underscores how far ahead Dumbledore thought before his death.
 

Seesaw15

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,601
Also because the sword must be acquired through an act of bravery.
I was gonna add that bit but I never really understood how it worked. I know Harry got it when he was saving Ginny from the Basilisks, Ron got it when he was rescuing Harry from the lake and Neville got it when he was confronting Voldemort. But is the implication if Scrimgeour just gave the sword to Harry at the Weasley's he couldn't have used it immediately? Like did Dumbledore have to preform brave act every time he was destroying a horcux in his office? Like it would come to a worthy Griffindor in need but if it was right in front of you it wasn't clear if it was required or if Snape was just being a dick/Dumbledore was playing 6D chest.
 

SugarNoodles

Member
Nov 3, 2017
7,248
Portland, OR
how did harry kill voldemort in the book

since when does the spell that makes people drop their wand also kill them
One of the weakest parts of the final book is that Rowling introduces a bunch of wand lore that doesn’t really make sense or fit into the events that transpired in previous books.

Basically wands have masters, chosen by the wand (which is why using another wizard’s wand doesn’t work very well) and Dumbledore assumed that in order for someone else to inherit the Elder Wand, they’d have to kill him in a duel. Thus, Dumbledore makes Snape promise that if things start to go south, Snape has to be the one to kill Dumbledore, and since Dumbledore will be dying willingly at the hands of Snape, the Elder Wand will pass onto no one, preventing Voldemort from acquiring it.

What actually happens is that Malfoy becomes the master of the Elder Wand because he disarms Dumbledore right before Snape kills him. No one actually knows this until Harry realizes it right before his final confrontation with Voldemort.

Voldemort has the Elder wand throughout the most of the book which he gets from Dumbledore’s tomb. He can’t make it bend to his will so he tries various things like killing Grindelwald who previously used the Elder wand and eventually even kills Snape, believing him to have inherited the wand from Dumbledore.

Now Harry ends up becoming the actual master of the Elder wand because when he gets captured in Malfoy Manor, he ends up tackling Malfoy and physically wrestling his wand away from him, which the wand reads as enough to change allegiance to Harry (Harry spends the rest of the book using Malfoy’s wand).

The Elder wand, despite never being in Malfoy’s possession, reads this as Harry being the new master of the Elder Wand, which means at the very end of the book when Voldy casts the killing curse at Harry, it backfires because Harry is the wand’s master and Harry is casting expelliarmus at the same time.
 

Seesaw15

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,601
Just looked it up and wow. They really screwed that up. I think it would have been great on film. I really don't understand why they do shit like this.
The worst part imo is they took out Harry's best line.
"It's your one last chance," said Harry, "and it's all you've got left... I've seen what you'll be otherwise... Be a man... try... Try for some remorse..."
The movie just turns it into two people yelling and then a final beam struggle.
 

Rand a. Thor

Member
Oct 31, 2017
7,621
Greece
Deathly Hallows Part 2 was fucking bad compared to Part 1. Part 1 is the first and only Post Columbus film that is a near perfect adaptation of the books, and then they pull that shit on us. I mean the first part has issues with the severly cut Grimwald Place scenes which literally sets up and explains most of the shit that goes down later on, but its still solid everywhere else. But part 2? No epic back to back Dueling Circles in the Great Hall, a trivialized watered down Sacking of Severus Snape, no focus on the multiple battles going on(which is a result of none of the setup in previous films to give a shit about these), no redemption of Percival Weasley(I'm fucking serious bout this one), no Frienze book end for Harry Potter's first and final entrance into the Forbidden forest AND no Centaur Charge, no Zerg Rush Hogwarts elves shanking kneecaps left and right, no Teddy Lupin and thus no Harry becoming a Godfather to a child whose parents died as heroes, and most importantly, no Harry fixing his wand with the Elder Wand. A lot of the changes over the years were bad, but this movie was down right insulting as a cash grab when the first Part at least tried to keep it accurate.

Small bonus rant: We must have Harry in Hogwarts wear a robe at least once, lets have him wear it when they chase out Snape!
*5 seconds later*
Harry is wearing a canvas jacket, look its magic!
 
Dec 2, 2017
5,759
Deathly Hallows Part 2 was fucking bad compared to Part 1. Part 1 is the first and only Post Columbus film that is a near perfect adaptation of the books, and then they pull that shit on us. I mean the first part has issues with the severly cut Grimwald Place scenes which literally sets up and explains most of the shit that goes down later on, but its still solid everywhere else. But part 2? No epic back to back Dueling Circles in the Great Hall, a trivialized watered down Sacking of Severus Snape, no focus on the multiple battles going on(which is a result of none of the setup in previous films to give a shit about these), no redemption of Percival Weasley(I'm fucking serious bout this one), no Frienze book end for Harry Potter's first and final entrance into the Forbidden forest AND no Centaur Charge, no Zerg Rush Hogwarts elves shanking kneecaps left and right, no Teddy Lupin and thus no Harry becoming a Godfather to a child whose parents died as heroes, and most importantly, no Harry fixing his wand with the Elder Wand. A lot of the changes over the years were bad, but this movie was down right insulting as a cash grab when the first Part at least tried to keep it accurate.

Small bonus rant: We must have Harry in Hogwarts wear a robe at least once, lets have him wear it when they chase out Snape!
*5 seconds later*
Harry is wearing a canvas jacket, look its magic!
I mean part 1 tries to introduce Mundungus Fletcher when they skip him in order of the phoenix. That alone makes me dislike it.
 

Dishwalla

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,533
Boise, Idaho
The last movie is so bad, the deaths are handled horribly. The snake and Bellatrix dying have no emotional affect on Voldemort, he might as well not even know they die. Like in the book Bella's death happens within sight of Voldemort and when he sees it he has a brief resurgence of power, enough to completely toss aside the multiple people he was fighting at the time. Instead in the movie she just dies and turns to ash. Same with the snake, in the book it's head is cut off and send spinning through the air, setting up the tension, in the movie it just disintegrates. And then Harry and Voldemort embark on some bullshit where they fly through the air around the school and the spell backfires with no explanation given and Voldemort disintegrates just like the others. In the book his body is described as falling to the ground in one final lifeless thud, it gives his death a final sense of gravity.

And the thing is DH part 2 is the shortest of all the movies, it's not like they didn't have time to actually give the finale proper justice.
 

Wamb0wneD

Member
Oct 26, 2017
14,555
I thought Deathly Hollows 1 was, aside some stuff left out from the book, a really good adaptation. I loved the mood and tone they went with for the whole thing and the cinematography is great. Part 2 sucks major ass though.

Why didn't fake Moody just grab Potter at any moment before the maze shit?
Because you can't apparate on Hogwarts grounds and the whole point of the maze was the cup being a port key.
 

KimiNewt

Member
Oct 27, 2017
897
The worst part imo is they took out Harry's best line.
"It's your one last chance," said Harry, "and it's all you've got left... I've seen what you'll be otherwise... Be a man... try... Try for some remorse..."
The movie just turns it into two people yelling and then a final beam struggle.
You left out the best part! He calls him "Riddle", which is a. The name he hates. B. Makes him to be much more normal which is then intensified by his pedastrian death.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,012
how did harry kill voldemort in the book

since when does the spell that makes people drop their wand also kill them
In the book Voldemort's wand actually belongs to Harry and when Voldy casts the killing curse it refuses to kill its master so reflects the spell back on Voldy.

This is because the wand (the 'Death Stick' ie. one of the Deathly Hallows and supposedly the most powerful wand of all) was originally Dumbledore's who got it from his duel with Grindlewald. When Dumbledore died Voldy took it from his grave, thinking that he could use it to kill Harry, as no other wand would let (presumably because Harry was one of his Horcruxes and thus Voldy couldn't kill part of his own soul? I don't remember the proper reason). But the wand wouldn't properly obey his commands so he killed Snape, thinking that Snape had become the wand's master after being the one who struck the fatal blow on Dumby. However, what Voldy didn't know was that Draco Malfoy was in fact the wand's master, having been the one who disarmed Dumby shortly before he died, and then when Harry disarmed Draco in the Malfoy Manor the wand then switched allegiance to Harry.
 

Aaron

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,463
Ironically the Deathly Hallows adaptations keep the most from the books of any of them after the first two, but obviously still some details slipped through the cracks.

They tried to simplify the sword subplot by having Scrimgeour say the sword is missing (and thus the implication is Snape hid it so Harry would find it later), but in the book he just says the sword belonged to the school, not Dumbledore while Snape keeps it in his office.

Later on, Ginny, Neville and Luna attempt to steal the sword and get caught, so Snape has it hidden in Bellatrix’s vault at Gringotts. But that sword is a copy, while he hangs onto the real one. This is sort of conveyed in the movie (Bellatrix freaks out when she sees the sword because she realizes it must have been stolen), but I don’t remember how much they elaborate on the one in her vault being a fake.
 

RedSparrows

Member
Feb 22, 2019
1,464
I thought Deathly Hollows 1 was, aside some stuff left out from the book, a really good adaptation. I loved the mood and tone they went with for the whole thing and the cinematography is great. Part 2 sucks major ass though.


Because you can't apparate on Hogwarts grounds and the whole point of the maze was the cup being a port key.
Chloroform, take him off the grounds, bosh. Blame it on a juvenile drinking episode.
 

Rand a. Thor

Member
Oct 31, 2017
7,621
Greece
In the book Voldemort's wand actually belongs to Harry and when Voldy casts the killing curse it refuses to kill its master so reflects the spell back on Voldy.

This is because the wand (the 'Death Stick' ie. one of the Deathly Hallows and supposedly the most powerful wand of all) was originally Dumbledore's who got it from his duel with Grindlewald. When Dumbledore died Voldy took it from his grave, thinking that he could use it to kill Harry, as no other wand would let (presumably because Harry was one of his Horcruxes and thus Voldy couldn't kill part of his own soul? I don't remember the proper reason). But the wand wouldn't properly obey his commands so he killed Snape, thinking that Snape had become the wand's master after being the one who struck the fatal blow on Dumby. However, what Voldy didn't know was that Draco Malfoy was in fact the wand's master, having been the one who disarmed Dumby shortly before he died, and then when Harry disarmed Draco in the Malfoy Manor the wand then switched allegiance to Harry.
The best part of this specific plot point is that sounds convoluted, looks to be the most convenient ass pull considering the new wand lore of Book 7, but it actually makes tons of sense and is one of my personal favorite bait and switches in literature.
Ironically the Deathly Hallows adaptations keep the most from the books of any of them after the first two, but obviously still some details slipped through the cracks.

They tried to simplify the sword subplot by having Scrimgeour say the sword is missing (and thus the implication is Snape hid it so Harry would find it later), but in the book he just says the sword belonged to the school, not Dumbledore while Snape keeps it in his office.

Later on, Ginny, Neville and Luna attempt to steal the sword and get caught, so Snape has it hidden in Bellatrix’s vault at Gringotts. But that sword is a copy, while he hangs onto the real one. This is sort of conveyed in the movie (Bellatrix freaks out when she sees the sword because she realizes it must have been stolen), but I don’t remember how much they elaborate on the one in her vault being a fake.
She just freaks out cause it should be in the vault, but we have no idea why its supposed to be in there. A lot of the snape stuff was badly executed in the movies unfortunately. Another thing I jusy remembered, why the hell did theu cut the riverbed scene where they happen on Dean and the runaway Goblins in Part 1?
Chloroform, take him off the grounds, bosh. Blame it on a juvenile drinking episode.
Nah. I understand why you are thinking it should be easy, Goblet of Fire has fuck all to do with the book, and after the Death Eaters at the Quidditch World Cup its explained pretty well in the bookm that nothing gets in or out of the castle without sounding the alarms. Hogwarts was on lockdown well before Voldermort came back and iirc its also why the Ministry was so paranoid about Dumbledore in OotP.
 

Jarmel

The Jackrabbit Always Wins
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
4,567
New York
i remember reading somewhere that the train station scene in the books is actually meant to be a reconciliation of sorts between dumbledore and harry who had grown to resent him. apparently lots of stuff about dumbledore's past with grindlewald that was completely left out for some bizarre reason.

as a non book reader, i was like wtf is this scene about.
They kinda fucked up OotP in the sense that Harry really fucking hated Dumbledore throughout most of Book 5 because Dumbledore wasn’t telling him shit and just brushing him off. That combined with Voldemort bleeding into Harry’s personality. Then in Book 7 he has to deal with all of Dumbledore’s dirty baggage coming out and guilt for how the tower played out. The movies skipped through a lot of this.

One of the weakest parts of the final book is that Rowling introduces a bunch of wand lore that doesn’t really make sense or fit into the events that transpired in previous books.

Basically wands have masters, chosen by the wand (which is why using another wizard’s wand doesn’t work very well) and Dumbledore assumed that in order for someone else to inherit the Elder Wand, they’d have to kill him in a duel. Thus, Dumbledore makes Snape promise that if things start to go south, Snape has to be the one to kill Dumbledore, and since Dumbledore will be dying willingly at the hands of Snape, the Elder Wand will pass onto no one, preventing Voldemort from acquiring it.

What actually happens is that Malfoy becomes the master of the Elder Wand because he disarms Dumbledore right before Snape kills him. No one actually knows this until Harry realizes it right before his final confrontation with Voldemort.

Voldemort has the Elder wand throughout the most of the book which he gets from Dumbledore’s tomb. He can’t make it bend to his will so he tries various things like killing Grindelwald who previously used the Elder wand and eventually even kills Snape, believing him to have inherited the wand from Dumbledore.

Now Harry ends up becoming the actual master of the Elder wand because when he gets captured in Malfoy Manor, he ends up tackling Malfoy and physically wrestling his wand away from him, which the wand reads as enough to change allegiance to Harry (Harry spends the rest of the book using Malfoy’s wand).

The Elder wand, despite never being in Malfoy’s possession, reads this as Harry being the new master of the Elder Wand, which means at the very end of the book when Voldy casts the killing curse at Harry, it backfires because Harry is the wand’s master and Harry is casting expelliarmus at the same time.
I still think the wand stuff as a whole was dumb as the previous books don’t do a good enough job setting it up but I appreciate some of the thematic analysis in here about how Voldemort died a dog’s death by suicide.

It also opened up that plot issue about how Harry can never lose a duel for the rest of his life otherwise someone else becomes the Elder Wand’s master.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2, 2017
5,759
They kinda fucked up HBP in the sense that Harry really fucking hated Dumbledore throughout most of Book 6 because Dumbledore wasn’t telling him shit and just brushing him off. That combined with Voldemort bleeding into Harry’s personality. Then in Book 7 he has to deal with all of Dumbledore’s dirty baggage coming out and guilt for how the tower played out. The movies skipped through a lot of this.


I still think the wand stuff as a whole was dumb as the previous books don’t do a good enough job setting it up but I appreciate some of the thematic analysis in here about how Voldemort died a dog’s death by suicide.

It also opened up that plot issue about how Harry can never lose a duel for the rest of his life otherwise someone else becomes the Elder Wand’s master.
Isn't harry's resentment of Dumbledore book 5? book 6 is when harry gets the private lessons with Dumbledore and learns about the horcruxes.
 

SugarNoodles

Member
Nov 3, 2017
7,248
Portland, OR
I still think the wand stuff as a whole was dumb as the previous books don’t do a good enough job setting it up but I appreciate some of the thematic analysis in here about how Voldemort died a dog’s death by suicide.

It also opened up that plot issue about how Harry can never lose a duel for the rest of his life otherwise someone else becomes the Elder Wand’s master.
Well, he solves that by snapping the wand in half at the end of the 7th book which is a rather... simple solution to Dumbledore’s complex wand inheritance problem.

I do love the idea of Voldemort dying by his own hand, but the fact that Harry needed to cast a spell at Voldemort at the same time kind of lessened the impact for me.

After all, the killing curse doesn’t rebound in the forest when Voldy kills the horcrux in Harry’s scar/soul/whatever.

It was just so much ad hoc logic leading up to a flimsy climax. Especially given what a coincidence Harry becoming the Elder Wand’s master ended up being.

What’s odd to me is that Rowling brought back the “old magic protection through a sacrifice out of love” thing back but it was almost an afterthought.

Harry mentions after he’s gone to the forest and “died” that none of Voldemort’s spells he casts on the crowds are sticking and it’s because of the protection they got from Harry’s sacrifice.

What gives that even more weight is that Dumbledore didn’t even know for sure whether Harry would come back from that alive. Dumbledore’s plan, as he carefully details to Snape in the pensieve (sp) is that Harry must willingly go to his death at the hands of Voldemort knowing that it is the only thing that can save his friends, thus giving them the same protection Harry had as a baby. That was basically Dumbledore’s only plan outside of keeping the horcuxes a secret and leaving them for Harry to take care of.

But no, the reason Voldy dies is because of some convoluted wand lore happy accidents.
 

JeTmAn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,684
Having just re-read the book, when I got to that part I couldn't remember why the sword had to be in a pond, either. But aside from the obvious literary illusion (Excalibur), later in the book Dumbledore is recounted as telling Snape that the sword has to be retrieved under conditions of valor.

Edit:

Also, on the Elder Wand though...something that still doesn't make sense. Harry mentions that if he dies a natural death that the Wand's power will disappear...but he doesn't seem to remember that he became master of the wand by simply disarming Draco, not by killing him. So all anyone has to do is disarm Harry and on we go with the Elder Wand business.
 

Aaron

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,463
[QUOTE="Rand a. Thor, post: 23571780, member: 28944”]Another thing I jusy remembered, why the hell did theu cut the riverbed scene where they happen on Dean and the runaway Goblins in Part 1?
[/QUOTE]
Probably just to help simplify things. Would have had to cast new actors for Ted Tonks and the other goblin, for one (and Ted dies immediately next after that scene anyway). Dean also hadn’t been set up in the movies as much as he was in the books, so it’d probably feel a bit random to movie audiences that he’s suddenly a more important character (he would have had to be included in the Malfoy Manor scene as well).
 

RedSparrows

Member
Feb 22, 2019
1,464
Drunk ramble: why couldn't Moody use another port key to get Potter out earlier? Why did the cup end up being The Portkey? Get him out early, get the blood, yada yada, kill him off, bosh, no Doctor Evil foolishness.
 

SugarNoodles

Member
Nov 3, 2017
7,248
Portland, OR
Drunk ramble: why couldn't Moody use another port key to get Potter out earlier? Why did the cup end up being The Portkey? Get him out early, get the blood, yada yada, kill him off, bosh, no Doctor Evil foolishness.
They never go into the details surrounding making a portkey, but if we’re being generous to Rowling (which gets more difficult as time goes on), we can assume that getting a portkey into Hogwarts wouldn’t be easy.

But that doesn’t answer the question of how Barty managed it or why it insta-activates when the only other portkey in the book was on a timer.
 

Rand a. Thor

Member
Oct 31, 2017
7,621
Greece
Waiting anxiously for the inevitably Harry Potter television series.
I could see a Reboot on HBO Max. 7 10 episode seasons, 1 hour each episode would ensure maximum book authenticity, along with a cohesive visionary style and aesthetic.
Probably just to help simplify things. Would have had to cast new actors for Ted Tonks and the other goblin, for one (and Ted dies immediately next after that scene anyway). Dean also hadn’t been set up in the movies as much as he was in the books, so it’d probably feel a bit random to movie audiences that he’s suddenly a more important character (he would have had to be included in the Malfoy Manor scene as well).
Right, I forgot they ended up being captured alongside the Trio.
Drunk ramble: why couldn't Moody use another port key to get Potter out earlier? Why did the cup end up being The Portkey? Get him out early, get the blood, yada yada, kill him off, bosh, no Doctor Evil foolishness.
Again, Book GoF makes total sense of this compared to the movies. The Dark Mark at the beginning within the book was fired off of Harry's Wand by Barty Crouch's house elf so he was on watch for a good while there, and if he went missing within the school year what with publicity, suspicion and everything going on they might have caught on quick enough to stop Voldemort from coming back. By the time of the maze security and overall fear from the World Cup incident was severely chill.
 

Cheerilee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,604
Probably the Midi-chlorian equivalent or something. Although in Star Wars, Midi-chlorians are inside every living thing and simply having enough of them can grant you the ability to use the Force (I believe). I'm not sure. Guessing it has to do with simply being born of wizard blood, there's gotta be something biologically going on that can't just be given to a person unless it's from birth.
Wizards are randomly born to Humans (doesn't matter if the parents are Muggle or Wizard). Wizards have never been able to figure out a predictable pattern to it, so they just pick the kids up and bring them into the Wizarding World after-the-fact.

The child of a Wizard can also inherit some measure of a Wizard parent's magic (in addition to the random appearance of magic). This led to Wizard inbreeding as they try to preserve and maximize their magic power, but the idea that a "pureblood" Wizard is superior to a "mudblood" or "half-blood" Wizard is total bullshit, because you never know how much magic a kid is going to inherit (even if you draw from two sources), and some purebloods inherit exactly zero magic (looked down on by purebloods as "Squibs"), so purebloods are not automatically more powerful than a fresh spontaneously-created Wizard (that's just a lie they tell themselves to make themselves feel superior).

Neville was a late bloomer, and he would have been killed as an infant if his power hadn't briefly manifested when he was thrown out of a window.

Inherited magic power can apparently come back stronger in one generation than it was in a previous generation (see the "Heir of Slytherin" effect in Voldemort).


And magic power CAN be artificially granted to a Muggle.

Magic power comes from the soul. If your soul survives, you and your magic can survive the complete and total destruction of your physical body.

Voldemort ripped his soul through the crime of murder, and placed pieces of it inside inanimate objects, granting himself immortality (or at least extending his life to the life of the inanimate object), and in the process, he granted his own soul-based magic power to those inanimate objects. The diary, for instance, was able to grow and produce another Voldemort, complete with his Parseltongue ability.

Harry Potter inherited James Potter's exceptional ability to ride a broom, but he also inherited all of Voldemort's magic powers, due to being used as a Living Horcrux, and the presence of a fragment of Voldemort's soul being inside Harry. It's not clear whether Harry retained Voldemort's magic powers after Voldemort's soul was extinguished. Harry's soul might have "learned those abilities", so to speak. Or maybe he didn't get to keep those Slytherin abilities and he's back to just being the child of James and Lily Potter.

Therefore, it stands to reason that if a Muggle had been used as a Living Horcrux, they would gain magic abilities, for at least as long as they possess the Wizard's soul fragment.

Also note, Voldemort's personal magic power apparently didn't decrease as he made Horcruxes, and he was engaged in a failed/aborted experiment to apply Arithmancy to his Horcruxes, which would have theoretically done something to his soul and unlocked exponential new magic powers, beyond mere immortality.


Also, Muggles and Squibs are capable of using items that have been enchanted to act on their own by a Wizard. But they obviously cannot use magical items that require magic for their activation.
 
Dec 4, 2018
157
United Kingdom
Yeah, don't watch the movie adaptions and expect anything to make sense.

Snape put it in the pond. He was tracking Harry/Hermione by the portrait in her bag. He threw it in the lake because it was near where they were camping.
Basically this, snape put the sword there, even in splitting the film in two they missed (or changed) quite a few things. Though they’ve said in the films the sword finds its way to those who need it most/in their time of need. So I guess it’s brushed off as that.
 

Gigglepoo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,632
They never go into the details surrounding making a portkey, but if we’re being generous to Rowling (which gets more difficult as time goes on), we can assume that getting a portkey into Hogwarts wouldn’t be easy.

But that doesn’t answer the question of how Barty managed it or why it insta-activates when the only other portkey in the book was on a timer.
I don't understand. Did the books suddenly get worse or something?
 

Shroki

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,677
Again, Book GoF makes total sense of this compared to the movies. The Dark Mark at the beginning within the book was fired off of Harry's Wand by Barty Crouch's house elf so he was on watch for a good while there, and if he went missing within the school year what with publicity, suspicion and everything going on they might have caught on quick enough to stop Voldemort from coming back. By the time of the maze security and overall fear from the World Cup incident was severely chill.
Besides previous books make it clear Dumbledore has a much deeper eye on Harry than even Harry knows and if junior is caught by Dumbledore at any point, the whole jig is up.
 

Cheerilee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,604
I don't understand. Did the books suddenly get worse or something?
She co-wrote the Cursed Child, which has some HUGE writing problems (which don't apparently mean a lot when you're watching a live performance of the play, because apparently you're there for the live performances, not the writing), and it's unclear if she was responsible for everything that was right with the story, or everything that was wrong with the story, or something in-between. Regardless, she (being in a position of total power over the production) read the completed story and then called it good and signed off on it.

Then she wrote Fantastic Beasts 1, which was mediocre, but some people withheld their judgement because maybe it was establishing foundations.

Then she wrote Fantastic Beasts 2, which was a dumpster fire.

And for some time now she's been saying crazy shit on Twitter.

It has led people to start taking less-than-generous reads on the things that she says and writes.

All seven of the Harry Potter books are still pretty much regarded to be great. There's also that detective novel series that she started writing under an alias, and that's pretty good too.
 

Gigglepoo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,632
She co-wrote the Cursed Child, which has some HUGE writing problems (which don't apparently mean a lot when you're watching a live performance of the play, because apparently you're there for the live performances, not the writing), and it's unclear if she was responsible for everything that was right with the story, or everything that was wrong with the story, or something in-between. Regardless, she (being in a position of total power over the production) read the completed story and then called it good and signed off on it.

Then she wrote Fantastic Beasts 1, which was mediocre, but some people withheld their judgement because maybe it was establishing foundations.

Then she wrote Fantastic Beasts 2, which was a dumpster fire.

And for some time now she's been saying crazy shit on Twitter.

It has led people to start taking less-than-generous reads on the things that she says and writes.

All seven of the Harry Potter books are still pretty much regarded to be great. There's also that detective novel series that she started writing under an alias, and that's pretty good too.
I think your last point is really all that matters. The Harry Potter books are great. The Cormoran Strike books are great. The Casual Vacancy is also great. She didn't write the play (which is lousy) and the Fantastic Beast movies are nothing more than fine, but the play and movies has nothing to do with her novel writing. She's a great author so I have no idea why people wouldn't be "generous" in their reading of her books.
 

Cheerilee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,604
I think your last point is really all that matters. The Harry Potter books are great. The Cormoran Strike books are great. The Casual Vacancy is also great. She didn't write the play (which is lousy) and the Fantastic Beast movies are nothing more than fine, but the play and movies has nothing to do with her novel writing. She's a great author so I have no idea why people wouldn't be "generous" in their reading of her books.
Basically, when a great person says something you don't understand, you start working the gears in your head trying to figure out the great meaning behind those words. Maybe sometimes even you can find some greatness that was never there to begin with.

When a fallible person says something you don't understand, you start to think "Maybe they just fucked up? It happens."

When an idiot says something smart, you think "Wow, they seem to have bumped into the right answer purely by chance!"


JK Rowling's once-untouchable reputation has been falling quite a bit lately, which makes it easier to see flaws in the book as flaws.
 
OP
OP
Zen

Zen

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,339
I think in regards to HP being so good, it's a story that was years in the making in her head and constantly given attention as she mulled it over. It's kind of hard to replicate that since it's essentially her magnum opus.
 

Man God

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,554
Big fan of the books but Half Blood Prince the movie bounced off me so bad I never watched either Deathly Hallows.
 

Indeed™

Member
May 26, 2019
111
Best question: Why are all wizards and witches elitist assholes that refuse to help solve the worlds problems?

World hunger? Solved. Energy? Solved. Disease? Solved. Exploring space? Sure, why not!

But no, they would rather not be helpful and just sit back and watch the world burn. Screw them!
 

Aaron

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,463
I think in regards to HP being so good, it's a story that was years in the making in her head and constantly given attention as she mulled it over. It's kind of hard to replicate that since it's essentially her magnum opus.
I think she just hasn't really been able to expand the lore much beyond Harry's time at Hogwarts in a way that's meaningful or interesting. Wow, wizards used to poop on the floor and poof their waste to Mars! Wow, America has a (one singular) wizard school that's basically a ripoff of Hogwarts! Nagini used to be a person!

Like, when you look at the scope of the books, there really isn't that much to the wizarding world. Pretty much any adult Harry meets is a teacher, runs a shop or works for the government (or is just obscenely rich thanks to old wizard money and does fuck-all for work), and the most we ever get for exposure to international wizarding culture is Hogwarts hosting a few exchange students one year. There's little jokes and references (mostly in Goblet of Fire during the World Cup) that give you just enough to understand the wizarding world expands beyond Britain, but nothing more than what's relevant to Harry's life.

And of course, this isn't really a problem - the important thing is the story, which I really enjoy. But you see with the Fantastic Beasts movies and such that Rowling's efforts to expand the universe often reach "Anakin built C3PO" levels of obnoxiously tying into the original seven books. Whether that's just her limitations as an author or a deliberate choice to keep fans interested, who knows.