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

Oct 25, 2017
4,483
Arizona
Yeah really sounds like it.
To go a little further, there’s a very important character element in the novel about Expelliarmus being Harry’s “signature move”. The Death Eaters thought it was so bizarre Harry would use a disarming charm against Voldemort in the Goblet of Fire showdown, and believed it to be Harry’s “signature move”. So when Harry does it again against a Death Eater in the “Seven Harrys” bit in the opening of Deathly Hallows, THAT’S how they knew it was Harry, not Hedwig trying to protect him. Mr. Weasley then tells him he can’t risk have a known signature move, because it makes him predictable and would lead to his downfall.

Which makes the final confrontation so much better. After how dark of a place he was in between Sirius and Dumbledore’s deaths, up to the point where was trying to sling around unforgivable curses, he decides once and for all that attacking someone like that, even Voldemort, is not in is his nature, and fully and conscientiously adopts it as his signature. He warns Voldemort there’s nothing he can do to him, casts Expelliarmus in defense once more, and because Voldemort wasn’t the Elder Wand’s master and because Harry cast the disarming charm, Voldemort’s killing curse backfires on him like it did when Harry was a baby, and he dies.

It drove me ALL sorts of nuts they dropped all of that and went with “Harry and Voldy jump off a building, poof around a lot, and have a glow stick rave to the death”.
 
Last edited:

ArjanN

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,370
Any story with high level magic always falls apart when you think about it too much, because there's always 'wish for more wishes' options that are conveniently unavailable or not thought of.
 

Cheerilee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,604
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!
Wizards and Muggles apparently did coexist, for most of Human history. Some good Wizards helped Muggles. Other bad Wizards abused Muggles.

Around the 15th century, Muggles had decided that all magic was demonic and evil (even allegedly "helpful" Wizards must be secretly evil and cannot be trusted), so the Muggles were doing Witch Hunts, and while some powerful Wizards thought that was quaint, some Wizard children and weaker Wizards were killed by Muggles, and Muggles were even killing other Muggles under the false belief (or just pretense) that they were killing Wizards.

So an International Confederation of Wizards got together and decided to remove themselves from the equation. No more Wizards = no more killing in the name of Wizards. Wizard/Muggle relations are possible, but limited, so as to prevent widespread confirmation of the existence of Wizards. Any Wizard assistance with the Muggle world have to fly below the radar and not be attributable to Wizards.

Dumbledore in his youth apparently wanted to reject the system and rule Muggles benevolently for their own good, and plotted with Grindelwald to do so, but Dumbledore dropped that idea after his sister got killed and he cut ties with Grindelwald.

Grindelwald (in the Fantastic Beasts movies) apparently wants to intervene in the Muggle world and prevent World War II, but one of the upcoming movies is presumably going to try and explain how preventing WWII would have been a bad thing, or how preventing WWII was not Grindelwald's actual goal (the HP books seemed to have implied that Grindelwald himself was primarily responsible for WWII, and "Hitler" was the cover story that Wizards allowed the Muggles to believe).
 

Lord of Ostia

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,266
Why do people use toilets and school kids use trains in Harry Potter when instant transmission is a thing. Can't they just transport their mess under a tree and themselves to school.

I didn't read past book four and that was at release date. I've only seen the movies.
Because toilets are more sanitary than shitting on the floor and whisking it away. The teleportation requires significant magical control that young students don't have. It is really dangerous if not performed correctly, can result in death.
 

ScoobsJoestar

Member
May 30, 2019
416
To go a little further, there’s a very important character element in the novel about Expelliarmus being Harry’s “signature move”. The Death Eaters thought it was so bizarre Harry would use a disarming charm against Voldemort in the Goblet of Fire showdown, and believed it to be Harry’s “signature move”. So when Harry does it again against a Death Eater in the “Seven Harrys” bit in the opening of Deathly Hallows, THAT’S how they knew it was Harry, not Hedwig trying to protect him. Mr. Weasley then tells him he can’t risk have a known signature move, because it makes him predictable and would lead to his downfall.

Which makes the final confrontation so much better. He decides once and for all that attacking someone, even Voldemort, is not in is his nature, fully adopts it as his signature, and warns Voldemort there’s nothing he can do to him. Then he uses Expelliarmus, and because he wasn’t the Elder Wand’s master and Harry cast the disarming charm, Voldemort’s killing curse backfires on him like it did when Harry was a baby, and he dies.

It drove me ALL sorts of nuts they dropped all of that and went with “Harry and Voldy jump off a building, poof around a lot, and have a glow stick rave to the death”.
As a kid I was like "Hell yeah I wanted Harry to have a more dramatic fight and this fits!!!" as an adult I went "...Actually I like the books a lot better. Harry not being a ridiculously overpowered power fantasy despite his achievements is what really sells him and the movie worsened that."
 

Yasuke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,812
Reasons I love the movies but never really recommend them to people on their own.

They’re wonderful companion films to the books, but they cut out a ton of necessary exposition and smaller plot details that help contextualize a lot.
 

Dream Machine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,577
Can you explain this? Never read the books and won’t but really curious how they handled the ending differently.
In the book, Harry one-shots Voldy with the Elder Wand.
Not quite. Voldemort one shot himself through his own hubris and not understanding/respecting wand rules. The movies complete fucked that up and just went for a generic battle that no one in universe even saw.

edit: sorry, this already was explained
 

B-Dubs

Oh well, what the hell?
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
15,995
Pretty sure this questions gets answered in part 2 of the movie OP, when Snape dies.
 

Toxi

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
8,589
how did harry kill voldemort in the book

since when does the spell that makes people drop their wand also kill them
He didn't. Tom killed himself by trying to use the Elder Wand that actually belonged to Harry to kill its real master.

It's funny because Harry's choice of spell didn't even matter.
 

kurahador

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,708
That's David Yates magical touch. Skimping on important details for the sake of more shitty character drama.
 

Cheerilee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,604
It should be possible. Magical ability is genetic. Muggle-born witches and wizards exist because they had a magical ancestor. And Squibs are clearly a recessive phenotype. I imagine some kind of magic genetic engineering would do the job.
Magic in the HP world comes from the soul, not from DNA.

It's how Voldemort was able to survive the complete destruction of his original body (no more DNA, but his soul remained, because it still had at least one more tethering point to the world), and how an inanimate object (his diary) was able to manifest an entirely new Voldemort (because Voldy attached a fragment of his soul to it), and how Harry got access to an "Heir of Slytherin" powerset (he was carrying a fragment of Voldy's soul).

Avada Kedavra is a killing curse that causes no detectable physical harm to the body, so it's presumably a soul-extinguishing attack, or something that immediately pushes the soul into the afterlife.

Children inheriting the magic of their parents/ancestors is part of how souls work in the HP world, not DNA.

It should be entirely possible to give a Muggle magic by turning them into a Living Horcrux. Cram a fragment of a Wizard's soul into a Muggle, and the Muggle should gain access to that Wizard's entire powerset.
 

Tezz

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,558
California, U.S.
Magic in the HP world comes from the soul, not from DNA.

It's how Voldemort was able to survive the complete destruction of his original body (no more DNA, but his soul remained, because it still had at least one more tethering point to the world), and how an inanimate object (his diary) was able to manifest an entirely new Voldemort (because Voldy attached a fragment of his soul to it), and how Harry got access to an "Heir of Slytherin" powerset (he was carrying a fragment of Voldy's soul).

Avada Kedavra is a killing curse that causes no detectable physical harm to the body, so it's presumably a soul-extinguishing attack, or something that immediately pushes the soul into the afterlife.

Children inheriting the magic of their parents/ancestors is part of how souls work in the HP world, not DNA.

It should be entirely possible to give a Muggle magic by turning them into a Living Horcrux. Cram a fragment of a Wizard's soul into a Muggle, and the Muggle should gain access to that Wizard's entire powerset.
I'm gonna need to see some studies on souls before adopting this.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,483
Arizona
He didn't. Tom killed himself by trying to use the Elder Wand that actually belonged to Harry to kill its real master.

It's funny because Harry's choice of spell didn't even matter.
I think that had Harry not cast a defensive charm the killing curse would have just failed, rather than outright reflected, but I guess I can’t be sure of that. Either way, youplayedyourself.gif, lol
 

Rand a. Thor

Member
Oct 31, 2017
7,620
Greece
Fantastic Beasts is nowhere near Dumpster Fire, come on.
I'm gonna need to see some studies on souls before adopting this.
Think about the Love Protection Harry's Mom placed on him or the whole house arrest protection until you are an adult thing going on. Lily's Soul lived on in Harry, and her love for her son wrapped it up so that his soul won't die. Meanwhile they say the heart is where the home is, so I guess its a symbiotic relationship for minor witches and wizards to have your soul tied to your residence so that no harm will happen to them. Or something.
 
Dec 2, 2017
5,759
Fantastic Beasts is nowhere near Dumpster Fire, come on.

Think about the Love Protection Harry's Mom placed on him or the whole house arrest protection until you are an adult thing going on. Lily's Soul lived on in Harry, and her love for her son wrapped it up so that his soul won't die. Meanwhile they say the heart is where the home is, so I guess its a symbiotic relationship for minor witches and wizards to have your soul tied to your residence so that no harm will happen to them. Or something.
Second one definitely is.
 

Cruxist

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
640
Everybody in here talking about all the stuff that’s missing in the movie and nobody mentions the best part.

When Harry sees that death eater woman spit on McGonagall and he finally uses Crucio at its full power to knock her out of commission. It’s a perfectly stupid Harry move and is probably my favorite character beat in the entire series.
 

Untzillatx

Member
Oct 27, 2017
763
Basque Country
Even though I adored them as a teenager, now I believe the Harry Potter films are pretty mediocre at adapting the source material. The first two excel at it, and it goes downhill from there (Half-blood Prince being the worst in this regard). The third movie has merits for its cinematography, but that's all.
 

Andrin

Member
Nov 11, 2017
42
Another thing that was more clear in the book was that Harry actually became the so called 'Master of Death' by the end of DH, even though what that actually means was never properly explored. It's made pretty explicit that he is the rightful owner of each Hallow, and they are all gathered together in the same location when he walks into the Forbidden Forest.
He inherited the Cloak of Invisibility through his family, he was willingly given the Resurrection Stone by Dumbledore, and he was the master of the Elder Wand by right of conquest.
I might be misremembering, but I think it was even implied during the conversation with Dumbledore at King's Cross that the reason why he was even able to become the 'MoD' was because he never sought power or immortality, but rather followed the third brother's footsteps in being humble and caring for others over himself.
The Hallows felt more like footnotes in the movies, despite them literally being in the title.
 
Last edited:

Jimnymebob

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,374
Deathly Hallows part 1 is probably one of the worst films I've ever seen.
It's just a big pile of nothing happening, with the most anticlimactic ending.
 
Dec 2, 2017
5,759
Another thing that was more clear in the book was that Harry actually became the so called 'Master of Death' by the end of DH, even though what that actually means was never properly explored. It's made pretty explicit that he is the rightful owner of each Hallow, and they are all gathered together in the same location when he walks into the Forbidden Forest.
He inherited the Cloak of Invisibility through his family, he was willingly given the Ressurection Stone by Dumbledore, and he was the master of the Elder Wand by right of conquest.
I might be misremembering, but I think it was even implied during the conversation with Dumbledore at King's Cross that the reason why he was even able to become the 'MoD' was because he never sought power or immortality, but rather followed the third brother's footsteps in being humble and caring for others over himself.
The Hallows felt more like footnotes in the movies, despite them literally being in the title.
Yes that’s right. Dumbledore says

“Maybe a man in a million could unite the Hallows, Harry. I was fit only to possess the meanest of them, the least extraordinary. I was fit to own the Elder Wand, and not to boast of it, and not to kill with it. I was permitted to tame and to use it, because I took it, not for gain, but to save others from it.”
 
OP
OP
Zen

Zen

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,339
Pretty sure this questions gets answered in part 2 of the movie OP, when Snape dies.
Yep, I watched it last night. While the ending fight in the books is much more thematically consistent and better executed, I was still impressed with the scale of combat shown at the battle of Hogwarts. And Snape deflecting Mcgonagall's spells into the two Death Eaters behind him was very well played. And having finally finished the film series now I got teary eyed thinking of the cast and how they basically grew into their performances. I think I'm going to re read the series before I try to tackle Cursed Child

Concerning the master of death i'm still unsure where the resurrection stone came from. Was Dumbledore just holding it all this time? So he had the opportunity to take the cloak and become the master of death, but never did. It seems to be implied that the title is worthless anyway, and that aside from creating zombies and being able to kill people and sneak about, like Voldemort pretty much, there is no additional ability obtained by having all three artifacts.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2, 2017
5,759
Yep, I watched it last night. While the ending fight in the books is much more thematically consistent and better executed, I was still impressed with the scale of combat shown at the battle of Hogwarts. And Snape deflecting Mcgonagall's spells into the two Death Eaters behind him was very well played. And having finally finished the film series now I got teary eyed thinking of the cast and how they basically grew into their performances. I think I'm going to re read the series before I try to tackle Cursed Child

Concerning the master of death i'm still unsure where the resurrection stone came from. Was Dumbledore just holding it all this time? So he had the opportunity to take the cloak and become the master of death, but never did. It seems to be implied that the title is worthless anyway, and that aside from creating zombies and being able to kill people and sneak about, like Voldemort pretty much, there is no additional ability obtained by having all three artifacts.
In the book, he finds the stone in the ring in the Gaunts house where Voldemort hid it. The ring curses dumbledore when he tries to use the stone, puts a death sentence on him. Dumbledore puts the stone in the snitch he gives to harry in his will.
 

Aaron

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,463
Concerning the master of death i'm still unsure where the resurrection stone came from. Was Dumbledore just holding it all this time? So he had the opportunity to take the cloak and become the master of death, but never did. It seems to be implied that the title is worthless anyway, and that aside from creating zombies and being able to kill people and sneak about, like Voldemort pretty much, there is no additional ability obtained by having all three artifacts.
If you didn't read the books, good luck on trying to figure this out.

The ring Horcrux that Dumbledore destroyed before Half-Blood Prince was the Resurrection Stone. It had been passed down Voldemort's lineage and his grandfather claimed it bore the Peverell coat of arms - Dumbledore even guesses that Voldemort didn't know what it was outside of a family heirloom.

The reason Dumbledore has the cursed hand in Half-Blood Prince is because he attempted to use the Stone once he figured out what it was, but before he destroyed the piece of Voldemort's soul that lived inside of it.
 

Cheerilee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,604
Concerning the master of death i'm still unsure where the resurrection stone came from. Was Dumbledore just holding it all this time? So he had the opportunity to take the cloak and become the master of death, but never did. It seems to be implied that the title is worthless anyway, and that aside from creating zombies and being able to kill people and sneak about, like Voldemort pretty much, there is no additional ability obtained by having all three artifacts.
Dumbledore and Grindelwald in their youth were both Deathly Hallows fanboys (in addition to planning world conquest).

After Dumbledore and Grindelwald split up, Grindelwald stole the Elder Wand from Gregorovich the Wandmaker (an Eastern-European Wandmaker in the same trade as the UK's Ollivander), because Gregorovich was foolish enough to boast that his wands were superior because he was using the legendary Elder Wand to make them. And then Dumbledore eventually took the Elder Wand from Grindelwald after beating him in a duel.

James Potter had the Invisibility Cloak, which he had inherited through the longstanding Potter lineage, which had inherited it from the Peverell line (the Peverells being the Three Brothers from the Deathly Hallows story). As a kid in Hogwarts, James used it for pranks and mischief. When James became an adult and joined the Order of the Phoenix to help Dumbledore fight Voldemort 1.0, he showed the Invisibility Cloak to Dumbledore, and Dumbledore practically orgasmed, because Dumbledore could see that it was no ordinary invisibility cloak, it was THE Invisibility Cloak, the original one (all the others are plainly inferior copies, and even then they're very expensive). Dumbledore asked James if he could borrow it, to study it, and James (not knowing it's true value) said "Sure". Then James (minus his cloak) got killed by Voldemort. Dumbledore hung onto the dead James' Invisibility Cloak for several years, until Harry came to Hogwarts, and Dumbledore delivered it anonymously back to Harry.

The Resurrection Stone was engraved with the Peverell Family Crest (aka the symbol of the Deathly Hallows) and set into a ring. Voldemort's poverty-striken Grandfather (on his Mother's Slytherin-descended Wizard side of the family) loved to flaunt it as proof that he was better than everyone, despite his obvious poverty. Voldemort killed his grandfather and stole it. He eventually turned it into his first Horcrux. Voldemort did not know that it was a Deathly Hallows (Voldemort was Muggle-raised like Harry and had no idea what such a thing even was). Dumbledore found it while looking for Voldemort's Horcruxes, and when he saw it was a Deathly Hallows he lost his sense of reason and grabbed it without thinking, which triggered Voldemort's trap, which was a Death Curse of some sort. Snape managed to slow-but-not-stop the curse, which killed/blackened Dumbledore's hand. Which is why Dumbledore enacted a suicide plan with Snape, because Dumbledore was walking dead anyways and his death was imminent. Dumbledore put the Resurrection Stone inside Harry's first Golden Snitch and left it to Harry in his will.

Dumbledore was able to see and touch all three Deathly Hallows, but he never held all three of them at the same time, because he returned the Invisibility Cloak to Harry in Year One, and he found the Resurrection Stone in the break between Years Five and Six.

Dumbledore gave Harry the Invisibility Cloak and the Resurrection Stone, but he had planned to kill the Elder Wand and take it with him to his grave. Dumbledore thought that suicide-by-Snape would result in a masterless Elder Wand, but Dumbledore was wrong, and he did not anticipate that Draco would inherit the Elder Wand by simply disarming Dumbledore, nor that Harry would inherit the Elder Wand by way of the Elder Wand following Draco's Wand after Draco's Wand changed it's allegiance to Harry. Harry becoming the Master of Death was not part of Dumbledore's plan.
 
OP
OP
Zen

Zen

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,339
Dumbledore gave Harry the Invisibility Cloak and the Resurrection Stone, but he had planned to kill the Elder Wand and take it with him to his grave. Dumbledore thought that suicide-by-Snape would result in a masterless Elder Wand, but Dumbledore was wrong, and he did not anticipate that Draco would inherit the Elder Wand by simply disarming Dumbledore, nor that Harry would inherit the Elder Wand by way of the Elder Wand following Draco's Wand after Draco's Wand changed it's allegiance to Harry. Harry becoming the Master of Death was not part of Dumbledore's plan.
This actually makes Dumbledore look so much more human
 

GNOSIS

Member
Oct 29, 2017
109
After all these years, I still love reading discussion about Harry Potter.

Can't wait for the game.
 

Sayers

Member
Oct 28, 2017
253
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.
Dare I ask what kind of crazy shit she has been saying? Is it retcons about Harry Potter or something? I heard something a while back about her saying publicly she should have had Harry and Hermione end up together. (I can only assume large portions of the internet burst into flames as a result.)
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,483
Arizona
This actually makes Dumbledore look so much more human
A huge point of Deathly Hallows the novel serves that express purpose. A lot of it is dispelling the myth of Dumbledore within the fiction, and Harry (and the reader) learning Dumbledore was ultimately still just as flawed and prone to failure and miscalculation as anyone else.
 

Sacul64

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,550
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.
It's been a long time since I read it but wasn't the love protection on his friends at Hogwarts a trick by Harry? I remember him sneaking around in his cloak while everyone thought he was still dead following Voldermort rebounding all of his spells to make it seem that way.
 

SugarNoodles

Member
Nov 3, 2017
7,248
Portland, OR
It's been a long time since I read it but wasn't the love protection on his friends at Hogwarts a trick by Harry? I remember him sneaking around in his cloak while everyone thought he was still dead following Voldermort rebounding all of his spells to make it seem that way.
Huh if so I totally missed that but it doesn’t mean you’re wrong.

But there has to be a reason that Dumbledore specified that Harry had to go to his death willingly and knowingly.
 

Cheerilee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,604
Dare I ask what kind of crazy shit she has been saying? Is it retcons about Harry Potter or something? I heard something a while back about her saying publicly she should have had Harry and Hermione end up together. (I can only assume large portions of the internet burst into flames as a result.)
Honestly, I don't really know. I don't do social media. But I've heard people saying that it's a thing she does.

The prime example is apparently her reveal that Wizards used to shit on the floor until Muggle-raised Wizards convinced them to stop doing that and use a damn toilet. On the one hand, I can see how that would be the case (Wizards are generally ignorant of Muggle-tech), but on the other hand, that really wasn't anything that ever needed to be said.

People are also apparently pissed off about Rowling's after-the-books reveal that Dumbledore was gay (it just never came up in the books, for some reason), followed by Fantastic Beasts 2 running headlong into that scene and dodging around it for some reason. That's sort of more a Fantastic Beasts 2 problem, but it sort of leans into her words not being worth the paper they're not written on.
 

callamp

Member
Oct 27, 2017
304
It's been a long time since I read it but wasn't the love protection on his friends at Hogwarts a trick by Harry? I remember him sneaking around in his cloak while everyone thought he was still dead following Voldermort rebounding all of his spells to make it seem that way.
Nope, Harry's sacrifice protected everyone. None of Voldemort's spells were effective after Harry's 'death'. He taunts Voldemort about it during the showdown.
 

Sacul64

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,550
Nope, Harry's sacrifice protected everyone. None of Voldemort's spells were effective after Harry's 'death'. He taunts Voldemort about it during the showdown.
Yeah I remember him taunting vold but I also remember that being apart of his plan since he was deflecting colds spells to make it look like that's what was happening. It's possible I misunderstood something when I read it.
 

Dream Machine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,577
I think it's hard to say how much of the self sacrifice magic actually protected everyone, if it was just a metaphor, just shit talking, or a little of all three since harry was actually there invisibly deflecting spells, and taunting and fighting voldemort.

The way that kind of Olde Magic™ works is left purposefully vague.
 
OP
OP
Zen

Zen

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,339
I think Harry's horcrux death had some effect on casting a protective veil, but it was more of a statement than a true spell. Basically it took Voldemort down a peg in power level rather than actually casting a barrier for team Hogwarts.
 

SunBroDave

Member
Oct 25, 2017
977
hey while we're all here talking about Deathly Hallows, does anyone mind explaining to me whether it was the possession of the Deathly Hallows themselves that protected Harry from Voldermort's killing curse, or was it the fact that the killing curse only killed the part of Harry that had been made a Horcrux by his mom's spell? I thought it was the latter, but if that's the case, then I've always wondered what the point of the Deathly Hallows was? I discussing this with my partner the other day and she couldn't give me a definitive answer, so if anybody here could explain it to me that would be great