Deathly Hallows 2

Off Topic
61

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]thogue wrote:
I was a bit confused on how Harry came back from the dead - can anyone explain this (and that festering baby under the bench)? I’ve looked up some summaries online but it still doesn’t make much sense.[/quote]

When Voldemort returned to life in the 4th book, he used Harry’s blood to do it, thinking to steal/nullify the protection Harry’s mom’s sacrifice gave him. It worked, kind of, but it also tethered Harry and Voldemort together. As long as Voldemort couldnt die (due to his horcruxes), Harry couldnt die.

The festering baby is the dying piece of Voldemorts soul in Harry.[/quote]

How does HP resurrect himself though? So he’s the only one to survive TWO Avada Kedavra curses?

Aren’t HP/Voldemort tethered since the night his parents die? Hence he has Voldemort’s traits?

And did HP know about the stone in the snitch? was that the resurrection stone from the deathly hollows? But he removes it before facing Voldemort so again how does he resurrect.

EDIT : I think it all has something to do with wands…

62

[quote]XanderBuilt wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]thogue wrote:
I was a bit confused on how Harry came back from the dead - can anyone explain this (and that festering baby under the bench)? I’ve looked up some summaries online but it still doesn’t make much sense.[/quote]

When Voldemort returned to life in the 4th book, he used Harry’s blood to do it, thinking to steal/nullify the protection Harry’s mom’s sacrifice gave him. It worked, kind of, but it also tethered Harry and Voldemort together. As long as Voldemort couldnt die (due to his horcruxes), Harry couldnt die.

The festering baby is the dying piece of Voldemorts soul in Harry.[/quote]

How does HP resurrect himself though? So he’s the only one to survive TWO Avada Kedavra curses?

Aren’t HP/Voldemort tethered since the night his parents die? Hence he has Voldemort’s traits?

And did HP know about the stone in the snitch? was that the resurrection stone from the deathly hollows? But he removes it before facing Voldemort so again how does he resurrect.[/quote]

Harry wasnt dead, thats the point. He didnt have to “resurrect” himself.

He has Voldemorts traits because a piece of Voldemorts soul was in Harry. That didnt tether them. Had Voldemort not taken Harry’s blood in the 4th book, Harry WOULD have died in the 7th.

He didnt know for sure. It was the Resurrection Stone, but the stone does not actually restore anybody to life, it simply recalls a shadow of them. The stone has nothing to do with what happens when Voldemort attempts to kill him.

63

^^ Sweet thanks man. When did you graduate from Hogwarts? :smiley:

64

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]XanderBuilt wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]thogue wrote:
I was a bit confused on how Harry came back from the dead - can anyone explain this (and that festering baby under the bench)? I’ve looked up some summaries online but it still doesn’t make much sense.[/quote]

When Voldemort returned to life in the 4th book, he used Harry’s blood to do it, thinking to steal/nullify the protection Harry’s mom’s sacrifice gave him. It worked, kind of, but it also tethered Harry and Voldemort together. As long as Voldemort couldnt die (due to his horcruxes), Harry couldnt die.

The festering baby is the dying piece of Voldemorts soul in Harry.[/quote]

How does HP resurrect himself though? So he’s the only one to survive TWO Avada Kedavra curses?

Aren’t HP/Voldemort tethered since the night his parents die? Hence he has Voldemort’s traits?

And did HP know about the stone in the snitch? was that the resurrection stone from the deathly hollows? But he removes it before facing Voldemort so again how does he resurrect.[/quote]

Harry wasnt dead, thats the point. He didnt have to “resurrect” himself.

He has Voldemorts traits because a piece of Voldemorts soul was in Harry. That didnt tether them. Had Voldemort not taken Harry’s blood in the 4th book, Harry WOULD have died in the 7th.

He didnt know for sure. It was the Resurrection Stone, but the stone does not actually restore anybody to life, it simply recalls a shadow of them. The stone has nothing to do with what happens when Voldemort attempts to kill him.
[/quote]

You tell em’!! Damn muggles…

65

[quote]XanderBuilt wrote:
^^ Sweet thanks man. When did you graduate from Hogwarts? :D[/quote]

Class of 2006, Slytherin (obvi)

Nah but seriously, I, my little brother, and little sister all liked the books, so we put some thought into figuring some of the oddities out. Fun way to connect with them.

66

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]XanderBuilt wrote:
^^ Sweet thanks man. When did you graduate from Hogwarts? :D[/quote]

Class of 2006, Slytherin (obvi)

Nah but seriously, I, my little brother, and little sister all liked the books, so we put some thought into figuring some of the oddities out. Fun way to connect with them.[/quote]

lol nice. I will try to read it someday as I’ve mentioned before I do love the fantasy genre just not enough time. I’ve also noticed with a friend’s niece (<12 y.o.) the level of detail they know about the books is astonishing.

67

[quote]TD54 wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]TD54 wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]TD54 wrote:
Those of you that don’t like her style of writing, why not? [/quote]

Really?[/quote]

Yes really… Was that a bad question?[/quote]

Not being a dick man but the quote right before yours, you know the one you actually quote me. I pretty much tell why.[/quote]

Honestly you didn’t… Unless i’m missing something. You just said it was childish? Thought there was something more specific about how she tells the story, develops characters, or structures her sentences etc…
[/quote]

Couldnt tell you it has been many years since I tried to read the first one, that is the only recollection I have is that is was written for someone in 6th grade. Only read half the first book so could get into much about character development.

68

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]XanderBuilt wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]thogue wrote:
I was a bit confused on how Harry came back from the dead - can anyone explain this (and that festering baby under the bench)? I’ve looked up some summaries online but it still doesn’t make much sense.[/quote]

When Voldemort returned to life in the 4th book, he used Harry’s blood to do it, thinking to steal/nullify the protection Harry’s mom’s sacrifice gave him. It worked, kind of, but it also tethered Harry and Voldemort together. As long as Voldemort couldnt die (due to his horcruxes), Harry couldnt die.

The festering baby is the dying piece of Voldemorts soul in Harry.[/quote]

How does HP resurrect himself though? So he’s the only one to survive TWO Avada Kedavra curses?

Aren’t HP/Voldemort tethered since the night his parents die? Hence he has Voldemort’s traits?

And did HP know about the stone in the snitch? was that the resurrection stone from the deathly hollows? But he removes it before facing Voldemort so again how does he resurrect.[/quote]

Harry wasnt dead, thats the point. He didnt have to “resurrect” himself.

He has Voldemorts traits because a piece of Voldemorts soul was in Harry. That didnt tether them. Had Voldemort not taken Harry’s blood in the 4th book, Harry WOULD have died in the 7th.

He didnt know for sure. It was the Resurrection Stone, but the stone does not actually restore anybody to life, it simply recalls a shadow of them. The stone has nothing to do with what happens when Voldemort attempts to kill him.
[/quote]

Actually it was my recollection that he did die. Him and the big V were tied together. They both had a part of the other’s soul. When voldemort kills harry, he kills harry and the piece of himself that was in him. However, harry was “revived” because a piece of him lived on in voldemort.

69

To be fair though, I am one of the people who grew up on these books (HP and the Philosopher’s/Sorcerer’s Stone came out when I 9-10) and the slow maturation in style/complexity suited me absolutely perfectly as I grew older. As much as I hated the waits for the next books to come out back then, I’m actually a little disappointed that my children won’t be able to age with Harry and the gang.

I’m currently re-reading the entire series and now can definitely vouch for the fact that the first couple books are definitely written in a very simple manner. The stories are great, but people are correct in saying they are very very linear, which people may not enjoy. In both one and two (I’m beginning three today) the ending sort of just suddenly begins and doesn’t get a set up it could benefit from IMO.

Of course, the later books may possibly be similar, but from what I remember, the style does mature a bit, especially going into the last three books-four is honestly THE turning point in the series stylistically and plot-wise. Everything naturally becomes a whole lot darker when fighting a live and in person Voldemort rather than a drastically weakened one.

Also, on a less mature note, my friend said it’s hilarious to read the books and replace the word wand with penis. I have to agree.

70

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]XanderBuilt wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]thogue wrote:
I was a bit confused on how Harry came back from the dead - can anyone explain this (and that festering baby under the bench)? I’ve looked up some summaries online but it still doesn’t make much sense.[/quote]

When Voldemort returned to life in the 4th book, he used Harry’s blood to do it, thinking to steal/nullify the protection Harry’s mom’s sacrifice gave him. It worked, kind of, but it also tethered Harry and Voldemort together. As long as Voldemort couldnt die (due to his horcruxes), Harry couldnt die.

The festering baby is the dying piece of Voldemorts soul in Harry.[/quote]

How does HP resurrect himself though? So he’s the only one to survive TWO Avada Kedavra curses?

Aren’t HP/Voldemort tethered since the night his parents die? Hence he has Voldemort’s traits?

And did HP know about the stone in the snitch? was that the resurrection stone from the deathly hollows? But he removes it before facing Voldemort so again how does he resurrect.[/quote]

Harry wasnt dead, thats the point. He didnt have to “resurrect” himself.

He has Voldemorts traits because a piece of Voldemorts soul was in Harry. That didnt tether them. Had Voldemort not taken Harry’s blood in the 4th book, Harry WOULD have died in the 7th.

He didnt know for sure. It was the Resurrection Stone, but the stone does not actually restore anybody to life, it simply recalls a shadow of them. The stone has nothing to do with what happens when Voldemort attempts to kill him.
[/quote]

Actually it was my recollection that he did die. Him and the big V were tied together. They both had a part of the other’s soul. When voldemort kills harry, he kills harry and the piece of himself that was in him. However, harry was “revived” because a piece of him lived on in voldemort.[/quote]

Hmm…you may be correct. My understanding was that he was simply unconcious for a bit, as Voldemort was knocked unconcious when the spell struck Harry…remember, Voldemort woke up at the same time that Harry “came back”

71

500×670 39.4 KB

72

did anyone else find the movie really dark (light level) in 3d?

73

i found it really boring. it focused exclusively on the main 3, prof mogonagal and voldemort.others at best got to look sdullen into the camera. i enjoyed the others because of the grounding in the muggle world and all the other characters chipping in.

74

Going to see it this weekend and I can’t wait. I’ve read all of the books and don’t want to echo the exact same thoughts as everyone else, but as mentioned it really picked up for me as they matured. Once that happened I couldn’t put them down.

75

It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?

Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.

76

I never had any interest in the books until a few years ago when my wife decided to listen to the audio versions during road trips. We started with the second one and eventually listened to them all (except the last one). The reader on the audio version did a really great job.

I also appreciated how the stories matured over time and eventually really got into the whole thing.

When the last book came out, my wife and I read it aloud to each other before bed each night (our sappy little romantic thing), and we reread a couple of the others in the same way. I realized that ROwling’s actual writing style seems terrible to me (just the way she uses her words and especially some of the dialogue - when you read it out loud, a lot of the back and forth dialogue is almost embarassing). However, the total universe and story she created, and the way the hole series ties together and matures over time, as others have said, is the real amazing thing. Aside from the writing style, the imagination and overall storytelling is what makes the series so great.

My problem with the movies is that even if you can follow the general story, you would be totally lost on most of the details and the significance of the character if you haven’t read the books first. Given the detail in the books, I realize it would be impossible to include everything. However, I thought the last couple movies were actually better than the books in how the final story was made a bit leaner and less tedious.

77

There had been a ton of hype in the news and on the radio about this series of books but I never paid any attention until I saw the first movie. I was floored.

Diagon Alley, Hogwarts Express, Hagrid, the Great Hall, the moving paintings. And, I was 25 years old.

So later that year on a road trip I got Goblet of Fire on audio and again was very impressed, so I conceded and caught up with the rest of the books.

But really, I read the books so I could enjoy the movies more. The brain paints pictures while it reads, but it’s pretty awesome to see what the real set pieces look like on screen.

I think the books are going to hold up and be read for a long time. I know I’m going to enjoy the hell out of reading them to my kids when they’re old enough. As for the movies: There’s really nothing better than putting one of them on during the Holidays to play in the background. To me, even though the more recent releases were during the summer, Harry Potter content is directly synonymous with the Holidays.

Goblet of Fire is still my favorite book. Deathly Hallows 1 and 2 are my favorite movies.

78

[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?

Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]

Because Harry’s horcrux was Voldemort. When voldemort kills harry, he comes back because he still has a “horcrux” in voldemort.

79

[quote]Ulty wrote:
I never had any interest in the books until a few years ago when my wife decided to listen to the audio versions during road trips. We started with the second one and eventually listened to them all (except the last one). The reader on the audio version did a really great job.

I also appreciated how the stories matured over time and eventually really got into the whole thing.

When the last book came out, my wife and I read it aloud to each other before bed each night (our sappy little romantic thing), and we reread a couple of the others in the same way. I realized that ROwling’s actual writing style seems terrible to me (just the way she uses her words and especially some of the dialogue - when you read it out loud, a lot of the back and forth dialogue is almost embarassing). However, the total universe and story she created, and the way the hole series ties together and matures over time, as others have said, is the real amazing thing. Aside from the writing style, the imagination and overall storytelling is what makes the series so great.

My problem with the movies is that even if you can follow the general story, you would be totally lost on most of the details and the significance of the character if you haven’t read the books first. Given the detail in the books, I realize it would be impossible to include everything. However, I thought the last couple movies were actually better than the books in how the final story was made a bit leaner and less tedious.[/quote]

Yeah, audio books are great. The reader’s name is Stephen Fry, he is a well-known actor and author in England. Also Hugh Laurie’s best friend.

HP could never really compare to Tolstoy, Hemingway or anything like that. They are just not in the same league. Though books do get more mature later on, they are still written for children and adolescents.

But it’s still a really, really good story, that entertains you AND makes you smarter once you put it down.

And this movie is the first one I liked.

80

It was an oke movie, some of the special effects were pretty good.
but as whit al the harry potter movies, the creatures sucked as usual!