I need a Harry Potter history lesson

[RoJoHen]

WITHOUT SPOILING THE NEW MOVIE, PLEASE!

I haven't read the books, and I won't be seeing the new movie until later this week. I am really only interested in learning about the past. More specifically, I want to learn a bit more about Voldemort's original rise to power.

When did Tom Riddle kill his first victim? How did he become so powerful without being stopped? How long was he terrorizing the magical world before they put a stop to him, and how did they actually stop him?

Harry was "the boy who lived," but did that magic that protected him also stop Voldemort? If not, what made Voldemort disappear?

 

[Timby]

Just watch the movies; they're only about two hours each. Since the new movie will be in theaters for two months, one movie a week should take care of you pretty well.

 

[RoJoHen]

I have watched all the movies many times. They do not provide the answers I seek.

 

[CaptainCanada]

When did Tom Riddle kill his first victim? How did he become so powerful without being stopped? How long was he terrorizing the magical world before they put a stop to him, and how did they actually stop him?

Harry was "the boy who lived," but did that magic that protected him also stop Voldemort? If not, what made Voldemort disappear?

His first murders were his father and grandparents, committed in the mid-1940s, though he framed somebody else for those. From the 1940s to the early 1970s, he was mostly travelling abroad, gathering some followers and building up his power. The real reign of terror was from the early 1970s to about 1980.

He was defeated the first time by his own curse rebounding on him when trying to kill Harry. Harry's mother jumped in front of his first curse, which killed her, and created an incredibly powerful magical protection around Harry that caused his next curse to deflect.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

A lot of the answers you seek were divulged in The Half-Blood Prince book. It detailed Riddle's parents, his childhood, his time in the orphanage, how he took "trophies" of victims (which later led to how he identified what he would use as Horcruxes). To answer your questions specifically, I can only recall that, yes, Harry's "protection" is what also stopped Voldemort. The protection literally caused the Killing Curse to backfire directly into Voldemort -- who would have been killed had he not set up his Horcruxes (which explains why, at the end of the HPB film, Harry's so intent on destroying the Horcruxes). I don't remember his first victim or the length of his original reign of terror, though.

 

[RoJoHen]

He was defeated the first time by his own curse rebounding on him when trying to kill Harry. Harry's mother jumped in front of his first curse, which killed her, and created an incredibly powerful magical protection around Harry that caused his next curse to deflect.

Gotcha. I knew that Lily Potter died saving Harry, but I wasn't sure if that same event was what defeated Voldemort. Did he simply drop dead, or did he disappear into some weird energy or something? I'm guessing the latter, which is how he ended up becoming attached to Professor Quirrel.

 

[RoJoHen]

A lot of the answers you seek were divulged in The Half-Blood Prince book. It detailed Riddle's parents, his childhood, his time in the orphanage, how he took "trophies" of victims (which later led to how he identified what he would use as Horcruxes). To answer your questions specifically, I can only recall that, yes, Harry's "protection" is what also stopped Voldemort. The protection literally caused the Killing Curse to backfire directly into Voldemort -- who would have been killed had he not set up his Horcruxes (which explains why, at the end of the HPB film, Harry's so intent on destroying the Horcruxes). I don't remember his first victim or the length of his original reign of terror, though.

Yeah, I knew that the HBP book was supposed to document a lot of Voldemort's life. Obviously, a great deal of that was left out of the movie, otherwise it probably would have been 4 hours long (though I might not have been opposed to that).

 

[JiNX-01]

WITHOUT SPOILING THE NEW MOVIE, PLEASE!

I haven't read the books, and I won't be seeing the new movie until later this week. I am really only interested in learning about the past. More specifically, I want to learn a bit more about Voldemort's original rise to power.

When did Tom Riddle kill his first victim? How did he become so powerful without being stopped? How long was he terrorizing the magical world before they put a stop to him, and how did they actually stop him?

Harry was "the boy who lived," but did that magic that protected him also stop Voldemort? If not, what made Voldemort disappear?

IIRC:
Tom Riddle's first victim was his muggle father.
Moaning Myrtle was probably the second. She died when she looked into the eyes of the basilisk in the girl's bathroom decades before Harry Potter came to Hogwarts.
Voldemort wasn't acting alone. He had many powerful -- and very willing -- witches and wizards in his army of death eaters.
Voldemort was nearly destroyed when he tried to kill Harry. Dumbledore tells Harry in Sorcerer's Stone that his mother's love and sacrifice of her own life to protect him was more powerful than Voldemort's black magic.
Voldemort was so weakened that he becomes a parasite, depending on various forms of magic (inhabiting a teacher at Hogwarts, drinking the blood of unicorn) to sustain his life. And he was in hiding because he needed time to regain his powers and his army scattered when he was defeated.

 

[CaptainCanada]

He was defeated the first time by his own curse rebounding on him when trying to kill Harry. Harry's mother jumped in front of his first curse, which killed her, and created an incredibly powerful magical protection around Harry that caused his next curse to deflect.

Gotcha. I knew that Lily Potter died saving Harry, but I wasn't sure if that same event was what defeated Voldemort. Did he simply drop dead, or did he disappear into some weird energy or something? I'm guessing the latter, which is how he ended up becoming attached to Professor Quirrel.

He became a non-corporeal entity at that point, and spent most of the next decade hiding in the wilderness using primitive animals as hosts.

Tom Riddle's apparent first victim was Moaning Myrtle. She died when she looked into the eyes of the basilisk in the girl's bathroom decades before Harry Potter came to Hogwarts.

Ah, yes, I forgot about Myrtle; she was probably the first, then his relatives.

 

[C_Miller]

A lot of the answers you seek were divulged in The Half-Blood Prince book. It detailed Riddle's parents, his childhood, his time in the orphanage, how he took "trophies" of victims (which later led to how he identified what he would use as Horcruxes). To answer your questions specifically, I can only recall that, yes, Harry's "protection" is what also stopped Voldemort. The protection literally caused the Killing Curse to backfire directly into Voldemort -- who would have been killed had he not set up his Horcruxes (which explains why, at the end of the HPB film, Harry's so intent on destroying the Horcruxes). I don't remember his first victim or the length of his original reign of terror, though.

Yeah, I knew that the HBP book was supposed to document a lot of Voldemort's life. Obviously, a great deal of that was left out of the movie, otherwise it probably would have been 4 hours long (though I might not have been opposed to that).

Well, that was my problem with the HPB movie in general. They took the relationship subplots of the book and put them as the main plot. The main plot of the book, which was the history of Voldemort was a lot more interesting.

 

[RoJoHen]

A lot of the answers you seek were divulged in The Half-Blood Prince book. It detailed Riddle's parents, his childhood, his time in the orphanage, how he took "trophies" of victims (which later led to how he identified what he would use as Horcruxes). To answer your questions specifically, I can only recall that, yes, Harry's "protection" is what also stopped Voldemort. The protection literally caused the Killing Curse to backfire directly into Voldemort -- who would have been killed had he not set up his Horcruxes (which explains why, at the end of the HPB film, Harry's so intent on destroying the Horcruxes). I don't remember his first victim or the length of his original reign of terror, though.

Yeah, I knew that the HBP book was supposed to document a lot of Voldemort's life. Obviously, a great deal of that was left out of the movie, otherwise it probably would have been 4 hours long (though I might not have been opposed to that).

Well, that was my problem with the HPB movie in general. They took the relationship subplots of the book and put them as the main plot. The main plot of the book, which was the history of Voldemort was a lot more interesting.

That may be, but when you only have 2 hours to tell a Harry Potter story, you kind of have to make him and his friends the center of attention.

 

[Timby]

The film adaptation of Half-Blood Prince had a shit-ton of problems, especially considering that it egregiously short-changed Snape, who has had almost no presence in the films as it is.

 

[RoJoHen]

Even though I enjoyed the HBP movie, it was pretty obvious that things were being left out. Snape's absence was pretty obvious, especially given his "reveal" at the end: "I'm the Half-Blood Prince."

Uh...okay?

That, more than anything, I wish would have been elaborated on.

 

[JiNX-01]

That may be, but when you only have 2 hours to tell a Harry Potter story, you kind of have to make him and his friends the center of attention.

True. But they still should have focused more on "the Voldemort is out there" plot and less on the lovesick teenagers' angst.

 

[DonIago]

Yeah...if you're caught up in the movie (and have read the book previously) it may escape notice, but for those paying attention Snape's whole declaration that he's the HBP without any actual explanation is just odd. I wonder whether they had more material about that that they cut for time or something.

 

[RoJoHen]

That may be, but when you only have 2 hours to tell a Harry Potter story, you kind of have to make him and his friends the center of attention.

True. But they still should have focused more on "the Voldemort is out there" plot and less on the lovesick teenagers' angst.

I agree and disagree. I think the movie was pretty dark and depressing, so it needed some of the love story to add a bit of levity. Otherwise, I probably would have left the theater wanting to kill myself.

That said, yeah, aside from a couple random flashbacks, Voldemort's absence was pretty noticeable. I assume that after the end of "Order of the Phoenix" that Voldemort went back into hiding for a little while to develop a new strategy.

 

[Timby]

Even though I enjoyed the HBP movie, it was pretty obvious that things were being left out. Snape's absence was pretty obvious, especially given his "reveal" at the end: "I'm the Half-Blood Prince."

Uh...okay?

That, more than anything, I wish would have been elaborated on.

If the scene of Snape snarling, "Don't call me a coward," had been in the movie, it would have lent a lot to the quality of the film. David Yates has a rather annoying tendency to minimize important character scenes while making rather unimportant plot-related scenes the primary focus.

 

[cultcross]

That said, yeah, aside from a couple random flashbacks, Voldemort's absence was pretty noticeable. I assume that after the end of "Order of the Phoenix" that Voldemort went back into hiding for a little while to develop a new strategy.

He doesn't appear (ie, present day) much in the book version of number 6 either; but his absence is less noticeable because the book is interspersed with Harry seeing lots of memories featuring him (not just the two we see in the film), so it feels like Voldemort is there all the time. I always thought the biggest flaw in the 6th film was cutting Voldemort out almost completely. OK, the backstory is less important to the films as they are taking a much more 1D good-vs-evil approach to Harry-vs-Voldemort and not delving into why Voldemort is like he is, but taking all that out did kind of mean film 6 was a teenage love story. Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it very much because they filmed the scenes they did film very well, but I was sad to see Voldemort's story stripped from the story when that was really the purpose of the 6th book existing.

 

[RoJoHen]

Fair enough. I think that having not read the books is both a blessing and a curse. I am a lot less informed about a lot of the backstory going into these movies, but I'm also pretty oblivious to, and therefore less bothered by, the things being left out.

I know a lot of people were upset because there is a big battle missing from the movie. Since I had no idea there was supposed to be a battle, its absence didn't phase me at all. And frankly, given the quiet and somber tone of the movie, a huge battle may have felt out of place (even though it probably would have been cool to watch).

 

[cultcross]

I would love to be able to see the movies without knowing the books, so I slightly envy you actually. I'd love to know how they work as a separate product.
My thought is: not very well. Watching them (especially from no. 5 onwards) I can't help but notice myself filling in a lot from my knowledge of the books. I think the main thing you miss out on just from the films is understanding Voldemort's motivations and reasons for his actions - in film he's just 'eeeeeeeeeeeevil'.

Perhaps the films work on a different level if you haven't read the books - just a fun (hopefully!) story without needing all that filled in backstory.