Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 & 2

This. This is what upset me the most. That and the bit in Limbo, I didn't like that one bit-although I was very impressed with how they brought the ugly-child-Voldemort to life, very vivid.

Good spot on that moment; I certainly hadn't picked up on it.

Though, I have to say, Hermione's face in that GIF looks like she's, er, 'enjoying herself'

I don't think the film made it clear that the only reason Harry survived was because Snape begged Voldemort to spare Lily?

Please explain this to me! I thought Harry survived because she tried to protect him when Voldy went to kill Harry to fulfil what he thought was a prophecy about him? I thought that Snape had begged Voldemort to save the whole family in general?

Haha, well they look obviously older to me. And wizards and witches age slower than muggles, and live longer (Dumbledore was 116 when he died). Some are even close to 150.
Anyway. I'm happy with they way they looked. They were only in their mid 30's, and they look noticeably older.

One thing about the films is they left out Peeves. His misbehaviour and naughty tricks in the books always make me lol.

I was pal so looking forward to his "Voldy gone mouldy" chant but...

It was a very good film though ^_^

Oh I was happy with how they looked...apart from still don't understand why their noses had to expand...

2) What did Draco's mum say Harry?

I enjoyed this film soooo much, it was just pure entertainment. I do think doing a HP marathon with my friend did get me slightly more excited. For some reason I just think Professor Mcgonagall is amazing!

I didn't read the last book so could someone explain a couple of things I didn't quite grasp?

1)Why didn't harry die?
2) What did Draco's mum say Harry?

I didn't read the last book so could someone explain a couple of things I didn't quite grasp?

1)Why didn't harry die?

It's a mixture of two reasons that the films never really made entirely clear.

Firstly, Harry is the master of the Elder Wand. It couldn't kill him so it went for the Horcrux inside him and this knocked him into limbo.

Secondly, Harry's mother sacrificed herself to save him. This invoked ancient magic and protected Harry from the killing curse leaving a scar on his head. His blood ran with this protection hence why Voldemort/Quirrell couldn't touch him and would burn. Voldemort then took in Harry's blood during Goblet of Fire and with that took in Harry's mother's protection. This allowed him to touch Harry.

However, this also acted as a tether for Harry. As long as Voldemort and his mother's protection within Voldemort lived, Harry would live. Dumbledore knew this, there's a small hint about a gleam of triumph, in Goblet of Fire.

Somebody might be able to clarify if it was both of those reasons or one specifically which allowed him to survive. I can't remember for sure.

In the book also, Harry's willing sacrifice to save his friends from further pain is like his mother's. And therefore any curse that Voldemort casts after Harry's 'death' on his friends doesn't work for very long.

The way I understood it both of those reasons are right. The second especially, although I don't think all that stuff with Ollivander and wand allegiance would have been so important if the first reason was not true. I've read some people suggesting that it was because Harry was in possession of all 3 Hallows but I don't really agree.

Quick question... when Voldemort kills Snape: why doesn't he use Avada Kedavra? I know it's more useful to the plot etc, is that the only reason? And why doesn't he just disarm him? Is it because he doesn't understand/value such simple (or non evil) things? Or because he would then consider the living Snape a threat? Or something else entirely?

I agree with it not being the hallows. After all, he does drop the stone and they just make you the 'Master of Death' in terms of power (kill, bring back and hide), not actually being able to conquer death.

Firstly, Harry couldn't have gotten the memories.

There's never been a clear reason why he didn't Avada Kedavra him, I guess being killed by Nagini is just as effective. As for disarming thing, that is a common misconception linked to the Elder Wand. Many wizards, throughout its history, thought it better to kill for the wand rather than understanding wand allegiance. People like Ollivander did, but mere wizards probably thought that the ultimate way to win an unbeatable wand was by killing its old master. Hence why it has a history of bloodshed. Voldemort would want to make sure, and killing Snape is probably the same as disarming him in his mind. He doesn't understand the 'wand allegiance'. He just thinks that it passes from powerful wizard to powerful wizard through death. It took him until the end of the book to figure out that just physically having the wand was not enough.

Haha yes I agree. I guess the wand allegiance thing is comparable to 'love' etc. and he doesn't see it as important. And the bold bit - he thinks death is the worst thing, what we've been shown throughout the series really. Snape's death also emphasies Voldemorts detachment with people/relationships, i.e. he killed his most faithful servant unnecessarily, in a pretty inhumane way.

Not related but something I noticed when I watched DH pt1 the other night... Bellatrix says she wants kill Harry when they're at the table at the start. Surely she should have learnt by now that Voldemort alone wants/needs to kill him. Every time I watch that scene I just think he should kill her or do a bit of punishment or something!

I gots a question!

If Harry is a horcrux and basilisk fangs destroy horcruxes, shouldn't Harry's horcrux part of him have been destroyed in Chamber of Secrets when he was bitten?