Absolutely, Voldemort destroyed the Horcrux, and Harry survived, because he had all 3 of the Hallows and was therefore "Master of Death"
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Pt 2: Grading and reviews
- Thread starter Neroon
- Start date
and here I thought that Voldemort was a horcrux to harry... (because of his blood in goblet of fire).
Harry never murdered anyone in GoF, that's a crucial part of making a Horcrux, it has to be done on the back of a murder. It was the power of Lily's love, and Lily's blood flowing through Harry's veins that saved him from the AK as a baby and provided his protection throughout the Series.
Ah, so that's why a Death Eater couldn't just walk into the Dursleys' and cut Harry's throat without using magic. Makes perfect sense.
Oh, wait.
Oh, wait.
Yup, at the beginning of OotP, Uncle Dursley tried throttling Harry and Vernon got a nasty shock.
That would require a Death Eater to use non-magical abilities to do it - something that just about all of them feel is beneath them.
I had a chance to see it on the weekend and while I wouldn't call it the best film of the series - after all, it's not a complete story - I would call it "A great addition to the legacy" and a fitting end. (If someone goes and edits Deathly Hallows into a single film, which could easily be done if the 3-D gimmick was ignored, then DH as a whole is the best film of the series, hands down.)
I saw the 2-D version, and in another thread I mentioned how the Boston Globe revealed that many theatres are showing 2-D films with 3-D projector lenses, causing the image to be dark and muddy. I do feel that was the case when I saw it - there were many scenes in which I could not see character faces or actions. (One example - minor spoiler - Hermione putting the sword into her "Mary Poppins carpetbag". I couldn't see the sword at all.) I was somewhat pissed at that.
But I'm still glad I saw it in 2-D and not 3-D.
Alex
I saw the 2-D version, and in another thread I mentioned how the Boston Globe revealed that many theatres are showing 2-D films with 3-D projector lenses, causing the image to be dark and muddy. I do feel that was the case when I saw it - there were many scenes in which I could not see character faces or actions. (One example - minor spoiler - Hermione putting the sword into her "Mary Poppins carpetbag". I couldn't see the sword at all.) I was somewhat pissed at that.
But I'm still glad I saw it in 2-D and not 3-D.
Alex
Why didn't Voldemort Just Cut off Harry's head and parade THAT instead
I didn't see a Harry Potter forum or sub-forum, so hopefully this is OK to post here. I've seen all the "Harry Potter" movies but haven't read any of the books.
Spoiler alert, I guess
So there's this part near the end of "Deathly Hallows, Part II" where Voldemort thinks he's killed Harry and he brings Harry's body to the school to gloat to his opponents that Harry's dead, Voldemort's won, etc.
Isn't it convenient that Voldemort didn't just cut off Harry Potter's head, put it on a stick, "Lord of the Flies" style, and then parade THAT around at the school.
Much more intimidating that way. But then of course, Harry couldn't dramatically regain consciousness.
I didn't see a Harry Potter forum or sub-forum, so hopefully this is OK to post here. I've seen all the "Harry Potter" movies but haven't read any of the books.
Spoiler alert, I guess
So there's this part near the end of "Deathly Hallows, Part II" where Voldemort thinks he's killed Harry and he brings Harry's body to the school to gloat to his opponents that Harry's dead, Voldemort's won, etc.
Isn't it convenient that Voldemort didn't just cut off Harry Potter's head, put it on a stick, "Lord of the Flies" style, and then parade THAT around at the school.
Much more intimidating that way. But then of course, Harry couldn't dramatically regain consciousness.
Re: Why didn't Voldemort Just Cut off Harry's head and parade THAT ins
Voldemort is very Anti-Muggle, using a Muggle form of murder, such as cutting off a head would be a repulsive idea to him. Anti-Muggle Wizards just don't think of doing Muggle-ish things, it's beneath them. It would be like a very racist person thinking to do something in a manner their "hated race" would do it.
Plus, Harry had all three of the Deathly Hallows, and was therefore the "Master of Death", so, it may be that cutting off his head wouldn't stop him from reviving
Voldemort is very Anti-Muggle, using a Muggle form of murder, such as cutting off a head would be a repulsive idea to him. Anti-Muggle Wizards just don't think of doing Muggle-ish things, it's beneath them. It would be like a very racist person thinking to do something in a manner their "hated race" would do it.
Plus, Harry had all three of the Deathly Hallows, and was therefore the "Master of Death", so, it may be that cutting off his head wouldn't stop him from reviving
Re: Why didn't Voldemort Just Cut off Harry's head and parade THAT ins
Because Voldemort is a classic villain. Villains just monologue instead of capping the hero. And they take in on faith that they've done the villain in. After all, who survives Avada Kedavra, right?
Anyway, he probably intended to feed Harry whole to Nagini in front of the student body, which was likely a more effective message than Harry on a Pike.
Alex
Because Voldemort is a classic villain. Villains just monologue instead of capping the hero. And they take in on faith that they've done the villain in. After all, who survives Avada Kedavra, right?
Anyway, he probably intended to feed Harry whole to Nagini in front of the student body, which was likely a more effective message than Harry on a Pike.
Alex
Re: Why didn't Voldemort Just Cut off Harry's head and parade THAT ins
But strangling Pettigrew is okay?
But strangling Pettigrew is okay?
Re: Why didn't Voldemort Just Cut off Harry's head and parade THAT ins
He doesn't strangle him in the movie.
He doesn't strangle him in the movie.
Re: Why didn't Voldemort Just Cut off Harry's head and parade THAT ins
Why didn't Crouch-as-Moody just turn a pencil in his office into a Portkey at the beginning of Book 4 (or anytime, really) instead of concocting a complex, tenuous and utterly unnecessary sequence of events to bring Harry to a trophy Portkey with thousands of people watching?
Answer: It's better not to ask.
Why didn't Crouch-as-Moody just turn a pencil in his office into a Portkey at the beginning of Book 4 (or anytime, really) instead of concocting a complex, tenuous and utterly unnecessary sequence of events to bring Harry to a trophy Portkey with thousands of people watching?
Answer: It's better not to ask.
Re: Why didn't Voldemort Just Cut off Harry's head and parade THAT ins
Maybe so, but this is the Boy Who Lived. The only person who Voldemort couldn't kill. The person who stopped his schemes several times over the course of seven years. I'd have launched another ten killing curses at that body, then checked it myself just to be absolutely certain.
Maybe so, but this is the Boy Who Lived. The only person who Voldemort couldn't kill. The person who stopped his schemes several times over the course of seven years. I'd have launched another ten killing curses at that body, then checked it myself just to be absolutely certain.
Re: Why didn't Voldemort Just Cut off Harry's head and parade THAT ins
Voldemort wanted to end the battle without more magical blood being needlessly spilled. Enraging your enemy and further martyring their hero by desecrating his body is not a good way to get them to surrender.
Plus, you know, it's a children's book and a PG-13 movie.
Voldemort wanted to end the battle without more magical blood being needlessly spilled. Enraging your enemy and further martyring their hero by desecrating his body is not a good way to get them to surrender.
Plus, you know, it's a children's book and a PG-13 movie.
Re: Why didn't Voldemort Just Cut off Harry's head and parade THAT ins
Agreed as well...another GAPING plot hole in Goblet of Fire: if a magical contract is so easy to forge by using a simple confundus on an ANCIENT magical object, why doesn't Dumbledore or Harry or someone in the ministry make one that causes Voldemort or any of the deatheaters to lose their magic if they use it to harm someone? If Harry can be entered in a competition without ever having agreed to it, they can write a magical contract in others names as well. Perhaps the idea of losing magic is so appalling they wouldn't go that far, but they could have done SOMETHING to stop Voldemort before he regained his body.
As to the OP....Voldemort definitely should have checked himself, or at least done another one or two AKs to make sure. Parading Harry's head on a pike does seem too muggle for Voldemort's style, and would provoke the enemy too much.
Agreed as well...another GAPING plot hole in Goblet of Fire: if a magical contract is so easy to forge by using a simple confundus on an ANCIENT magical object, why doesn't Dumbledore or Harry or someone in the ministry make one that causes Voldemort or any of the deatheaters to lose their magic if they use it to harm someone? If Harry can be entered in a competition without ever having agreed to it, they can write a magical contract in others names as well. Perhaps the idea of losing magic is so appalling they wouldn't go that far, but they could have done SOMETHING to stop Voldemort before he regained his body.
As to the OP....Voldemort definitely should have checked himself, or at least done another one or two AKs to make sure. Parading Harry's head on a pike does seem too muggle for Voldemort's style, and would provoke the enemy too much.
I really didn't interpret it that way at all, especially because at the time Harry died, he didn't have a single Hallow on his person. The cloak was elsewhere. The stone was on the ground. I can't remember where the Elder Wand was, but didn't Voldemort still have it? Just because Harry had come into contact with the Hallows at some point or another shouldn't make him this supposed "Master of Death."
I thought he survived because Voldemort's killing curse was just strong enough to kill the Horcrux inside Harry. Like when Ron destroyed the Horcrux on the Locket, when all was over, the Locket still remained. When Harry killed the Horcrux in Tom Riddle's diary, the diary still remained, albeit broken. The reason Harry survived wasn't because he was a Master of Death; it was because the Horcrux inside him took the brunt of the curse.
The whole Hallows thing was just very sloppily explained.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
