Final "Harry Potter" movie split into two parts
Garondo Marondo
magic for the final installment of the wildly popular "Harry Potter"
movies, splitting the seventh and final book into two films, the movie
studio said on Thursday.
Part one of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" will debut in late
2010 and be followed months later by part two.
"We feel that the best way to do the book, and its many fans, justice
is to expand the screen adaptation of 'Harry Potter and the Deathly
Hallows' and release the film in two parts," Jeff Robinov, president
of Warner Bros. Pictures Group, said in a statement.
The first five films in the series have been huge hits with a total
global box office nearing $4.5 billion. The sixth movie is now being
filmed.
The movies are based on British author J.K. Rowling's best-selling
fantasy novels about the adventures of boy wizard Harry Potter and his
friends as they grow from kids into teenagers at the Hogwarts School
of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
"Deathly Hallows," the seventh and final book in Rowling's series, was
published last July to huge fanfare, selling some 11.5 million copies
in its first 10 days in the United States.
But the final volume is a long saga at more than 750 pages, and it is
filled with many twists and turns as Harry and his friends Hermione
Granger and Ron Weasley wrap up their story lines. Harry faces -- once
and for all times -- the dark Lord Voldemort who murdered his parents.
Because of the many adventures in "Deathly Hallows," Rowling, the
movies' producers and Warner Bros. all agreed that two movies were
necessary to truly tell the end story.
"'The Deathly Hallows' is so rich, the story so dense and there is so
much that is resolved that after discussing it with Jo, we came to the
conclusion that the two parts were needed to do it justice," said
producer David Heyman, who first took the project to Warner Bros. in
1997.
The books and movies also have been a huge money maker beyond theater
box offices and DVDs. They have spawned products from toys to T-shirts
to a planned theme park.
By some estimates, "Harry Potter" represents a $20 billion business,
so an eighth film will likely only expand the enterprise.
Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry, and his co-stars Emma Watson
(Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) are now filming the sixth movie --
"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." All three have said they
would appear in "Deathly Hallows."
Warner Bros. is a unit of media giant Time Warner Inc.
(Editing by Jill Serjeant and John O'Callaghan)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080313/film_nm/potter_dc;_ylt=Al9y7qvmLtU0gUJNSvgXHk1xFb8C
Potter Freak
wrote:
That news is on yahoo
~consul
> wrote:
>> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Warner Bros. has conjured up some Hollywood
>> magic for the final installment of the wildly popular "Harry Potter"
>> movies, splitting the seventh and final book into two films, the movie
>> studio said on Thursday.
> That news is on yahoo
Yeah ... just like the link he provided showed. :)
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
John VanSickle
> "'The Deathly Hallows' is so rich, the story so dense..."
The Mother of All Straight Lines!
Regards,
John
Bill Glaholt
> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Warner Bros. has conjured up some Hollywood
> magic for the final installment of the wildly popular "Harry Potter"
> movies, splitting the seventh and final book into two films, the movie
> studio said on Thursday.
>
Gah. About three movies too late. GoF, OooP, and HBP should all have
been two.
Captain Infinity
Garondo Marondo wrote:
>LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Warner Bros. has conjured up some Hollywood
>magic for the final installment of the wildly popular "Harry Potter"
>movies, splitting the seventh and final book into two films, the movie
>studio said on Thursday.
Will Dumbledore be be buggering Harry in the first movie, or the second, or
both?
**
Captain Infinity
Paracelsus
Better late than never. With GoF and OotP it was possible to make cuts
without too much damage. Fans of the books were disappointed when
favourite scenes or characters got chopped but it was still possible to
enjoy the films as a self-sufficient story. For example, the Quidditch
sub-plot in OotP enriched the main story and developed the characters.
but it was not essential to understanding the plot.
With Deathly Hallows it is hard to think of a scene that is not
essential to the main plot. Harry and friends have to find and destroy
four horocruxes and then deal with Voldemort. That means at least five
or six big action scenes. On top of that you have to bring on the whole
Dumbledore backstory and somehow explain what the Deathly Hallows are.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
They could do it in one really good movie if they cut out all the running
around in the woods..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Edward McArdle
t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> In article <13tj3qp...@corp.supernews.com>,
> John VanSickle <evilsna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Garondo Marondo wrote:
> >
> >> "'The Deathly Hallows' is so rich, the story so dense..."
> >
> >The Mother of All Straight Lines!
> >
> >Regards,
> >John
>
> They could do it in one really good movie if they cut out all the running
> around in the woods..
But that might be the good part!
--
my URL,
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mcardle
AZ Nomad
>In article <13tj3qp...@corp.supernews.com>,
>John VanSickle <evilsna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Garondo Marondo wrote:
>>
>>> "'The Deathly Hallows' is so rich, the story so dense..."
>>
>>The Mother of All Straight Lines!
>>
>>Regards,
>>John
>They could do it in one really good movie if they cut out all the running
>around in the woods..
Hollywood doesn't work that way. At least 95% of the movie has to be
chases, fighting, and explosions.
Richard Eney
Paracelsus <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>Bill Glaholt wrote:
>> On 2008-03-13, Garondo Marondo <Classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Warner Bros. has conjured up some Hollywood
>>> magic for the final installment of the wildly popular "Harry Potter"
>>> movies, splitting the seventh and final book into two films, the movie
>>> studio said on Thursday.
>>>
>> <snippage>
>>
>> Gah. About three movies too late. GoF, OooP, and HBP should all have
>> been two.
>
>Better late than never. With GoF and OotP it was possible to make cuts
>without too much damage.
>With Deathly Hallows it is hard to think of a scene that is not
>essential to the main plot. Harry and friends have to find and destroy
>four horocruxes and then deal with Voldemort. That means at least five
>or six big action scenes. On top of that you have to bring on the whole
>Dumbledore backstory and somehow explain what the Deathly Hallows are.
There will also be the whole Snape backstory. It looks as though quite
a lot of the movie - both movies - will be flashbacks, I wonder where
the between-movies break will be. Anyone want to guess? My guess is
that the first movie will end with Harry and the gang flying out of
Gringotts, with lots of CGI and probably something done to remind people
of the end of PoA.
=Tamar
Toon
<petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>With Deathly Hallows it is hard to think of a scene that is not
>essential to the main plot. Harry and friends have to find and destroy
>four horocruxes and then deal with Voldemort. That means at least five
>or six big action scenes. On top of that you have to bring on the whole
>Dumbledore backstory and somehow explain what the Deathly Hallows are.
>
>
Pointless to the overall plot.
Paracelsus
Are you suggesting that you can make a movie called Harry Potter and the
Deathly Hallows without actually explaining what they are?
DaveD
"Bill Glaholt" <too...@glaholt600.coldwinterknights.net> wrote in message
news:slrnftjbum...@glaholt600.coldwinterknights.net...
Have to agree - although I liked DH a lot, and (with the exception of the
camping trip) it's full of action, GoF and OotP both had much more complex
plot lines - as did PoA - and while I enjoyed PoA and GoF, a lot of great
story was lost in the translation into single films each.
DaveD
DaveD
"Paracelsus" <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1MiCj.85978$w94.73587@pd7urf2no...
> Bill Glaholt wrote:
>> On 2008-03-13, Garondo Marondo <Classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Warner Bros. has conjured up some Hollywood
>>> magic for the final installment of the wildly popular "Harry Potter"
>>> movies, splitting the seventh and final book into two films, the movie
>>> studio said on Thursday.
>>>
>> <snippage>
>>
>> Gah. About three movies too late. GoF, OooP, and HBP should all have
>> been two.
>
> Better late than never. With GoF and OotP it was possible to make cuts
> without too much damage. Fans of the books were disappointed when
> favourite scenes or characters got chopped but it was still possible to
> enjoy the films as a self-sufficient story. For example, the Quidditch
> sub-plot in OotP enriched the main story and developed the characters. but
> it was not essential to understanding the plot.
I kind of agree and disagree :) Those scenes may not have been essential to
understand the plot, but they did contribute massively to the story and to
building the characters. I think it's those sort of cuts that resulted in a
very different - and far weaker, less sinister - Umbridge. As it was, she
just seemed to be a slightly strict and mildly eccentric teacher rather than
a manifestation of Fudge's paranoia and fears, with a bit of a hankering for
old fashioned values, instead of willing to do anything to support Fudge. It
was as if she just didn't realise quite how evil crucio was, rather than
knowing it was evil but deciding to use it anyway.
> With Deathly Hallows it is hard to think of a scene that is not essential
> to the main plot. Harry and friends have to find and destroy four
> horocruxes and then deal with Voldemort. That means at least five or six
> big action scenes. On top of that you have to bring on the whole
> Dumbledore backstory and somehow explain what the Deathly Hallows are.
Even with 2 films, I still think they'll have to make big cuts to the plot
and to expounding several characters' motivations. I wouldn't be surprised
to see much of the DHs go, although that might cause problems with the
films' names! Harry Potter and the Now-Irrelevants...
DaveD
DaveD
"Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:13tjo1f...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <1MiCj.85978$w94.73587@pd7urf2no>,
> Paracelsus <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>>Bill Glaholt wrote:
>>> On 2008-03-13, Garondo Marondo <Classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Warner Bros. has conjured up some Hollywood
>>>> magic for the final installment of the wildly popular "Harry Potter"
>>>> movies, splitting the seventh and final book into two films, the movie
>>>> studio said on Thursday.
>>>>
>>> <snippage>
> There will also be the whole Snape backstory. It looks as though quite
> a lot of the movie - both movies - will be flashbacks, I wonder where
> the between-movies break will be. Anyone want to guess? My guess is
> that the first movie will end with Harry and the gang flying out of
> Gringotts, with lots of CGI and probably something done to remind people
> of the end of PoA.
>
> =Tamar
Yes, I'm more and more thinking that's where it will be - ending DH1 on a
high.
DaveD
DaveD
"AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnftji8r.o...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
You missed out pointless CGI included for its own sake, as well as for the
chases fighting etc. :)
DaveD
DaveD
"Captain Infinity" <Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote in message
news:jddjt31leana3bfis...@4ax.com...
> Once Upon A Time,
> Garondo Marondo wrote:
[snip]
> Captain Infinity
Odd, I thought I'd killfiled you. Oh well, second time lucky
*plonk*
DaveD
AZ Nomad
Absolutely. A typical movie has to keep at least a thousand CGS professionals
employed. Movies like pirates of the carribean 2 and 3 are little more than
albums of stunts and effects held together with a plotline hardly worthy of
a porno movie. I wonder how many quick'n'dirty directors from the porno
industry have slid over to making today's action-adventure bombs. Shoot
the stunt sequences first, then slap in a little dialog to set them up
and you're done.
Toon
No, I'm saying they were never needed, and a better side plot would
have worked. Like it or lump it, the main plot was about Horcruxes,
not legendary death tools. They were there to slow Harry down.
You can also get away with Hermione saying there's a legend that Death
created an unbeatable wand, and the ultimate invisibility cloak (which
Ron remembers that Harry's acts differently then the normal bunch)..
The resurrection stone is not needed. Yes, Harry seeing his family
will be a great scene, but no big loss if it's cut.
Captain Infinity
DaveD wrote:
>"Captain Infinity" <Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote in message
>news:jddjt31leana3bfis...@4ax.com...
>> Once Upon A Time,
>> Garondo Marondo wrote:
>
>>>LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Warner Bros. has conjured up some Hollywood
>>>magic for the final installment of the wildly popular "Harry Potter"
>>>movies, splitting the seventh and final book into two films, the movie
>>>studio said on Thursday.
>>
>>
>>Will Dumbledore be be buggering Harry in the first movie, or the second, or
>>both?
>
>
>Odd, I thought I'd killfiled you. Oh well, second time lucky
>*plonk*
That's hardly an answer to my question, sirruh! As I have not read that
novel I am left in the dark, and must needs to know which film to avoid!!
But since you are not forthcoming (and just what are you afraid of?) I'll
have to seek out the answer using the INTERNETS!
**
Captain Infinity
..."Gay people, well, gay people are EVIL, evil right down to their cold
black hearts which pump not blood like yours or mine, but rather a
thick, vomitous oil that oozes through their rotten veins and clots in
their pea-sized brains which becomes the cause of their Nazi-esque
patterns of violent behavior. Do you understand?"
--Herbert Garrison
LAB Enterprises
--
Shop for clothes, boots, gothic, jewelry, collectible, Egyptian and more!
LAB Enterprises - ord...@labeshops.com
Read our blog with links to all our stores at www.Labeshops.com
"Bill Glaholt" <too...@glaholt600.coldwinterknights.net> wrote in message
news:slrnftjbum...@glaholt600.coldwinterknights.net...
Edward McArdle
"DaveD" <dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
We obviously didn't see the same film!
But I thought the last film *was* too chopped up, or badly edited. Harry
is having a bad dream, and then he is walking down the street. Is he
dreaming? No. Just two bad segues. Umbridge is carried off by the
centaurs, obviously to be slaughtered. No. There she is at school...
Thom Madura
Of the things that will have to remain - the Hallows and the Snape and
Dumbledore backstories must be in the movie. I think they can cut or
reduce some of the hiding sequences though.
THe real quetion is how much "Backstory" from the other books will need
to be included too. THese are two movies that simply will not be able to
stand on their own without at least some of it.
Thom Madura
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:57:40 GMT, Paracelsus
> <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> Toon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:27:57 GMT, Paracelsus
>>> <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> With Deathly Hallows it is hard to think of a scene that is not
>>>> essential to the main plot. Harry and friends have to find and destroy
>>>> four horocruxes and then deal with Voldemort. That means at least five
>>>> or six big action scenes. On top of that you have to bring on the whole
>>>> Dumbledore backstory and somehow explain what the Deathly Hallows are.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Pointless to the overall plot.
>> Are you suggesting that you can make a movie called Harry Potter and the
>> Deathly Hallows without actually explaining what they are?
>
> No, I'm saying they were never needed, and a better side plot would
> have worked.
But the Hallows IS what was used - and they are now the center of the
"title" of the story. They cannot leave them out.
Like it or lump it, the main plot was about Horcruxes,
> not legendary death tools.
The main plot was the coming of age of Harry Potter and the struggle of
good against evil. Horcruxes were just as much a side story as the
Hallows were - and were only truly important in the last book - when
they had to be destroyed. Of course - the last book was about the
hallows as well.
Thom Madura
> I agree.
>
>
I cannot - had the plots of all those books been stretched out into two
or more movies - many people here would be complaining that they milked
the books for more money.
JKR may have written a good set of books - but she was easily side
tracked by her side stories that had little if anything to do with the
real story. A lot of this was cut from the films - as it should have
been - or really reduced to what it was - nothing more than filler.
Stretching out the movies to include many of those side stories would
have made the movies intollerable to watch. Movies require a more
focussed storyline and action to keep their audience. We certainly
didn't need any reason to catch a few ZZs during the flicks.
Toon
<Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
>Once Upon A Time,
>DaveD wrote:
>
>>"Captain Infinity" <Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote in message
>>news:jddjt31leana3bfis...@4ax.com...
>>> Once Upon A Time,
>>> Garondo Marondo wrote:
>>
>>>>LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Warner Bros. has conjured up some Hollywood
>>>>magic for the final installment of the wildly popular "Harry Potter"
>>>>movies, splitting the seventh and final book into two films, the movie
>>>>studio said on Thursday.
>>>
>>>
>>>Will Dumbledore be be buggering Harry in the first movie, or the second, or
>>>both?
>>
>>
>>Odd, I thought I'd killfiled you. Oh well, second time lucky
>>*plonk*
>
>
>That's hardly an answer to my question, sirruh! As I have not read that
>novel I am left in the dark, and must needs to know which film to avoid!!
Avoid none of them. They're all good (not as book adaptions, but in
and of themselves.)
>But since you are not forthcoming (and just what are you afraid of?) I'll
>have to seek out the answer using the INTERNETS!
There's more than one?
Toon
<dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
So, just where is the midpoint of the book? What's happening halfway
through the book, page wise?
Paracelsus
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The mid-point in my edition is the chapter The Silver Doe. It ends with
Ron's return and the destruction of a horocrux. It also makes a good
ending point if the film makers want to end the first film on a positive
note. It will also be a very emotionally challenging scene for the three
leads. This is where we'll see if they really have what it takes to make
it as adult actors.
Richard Eney
AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
<snip>
>A typical movie has to keep at least a thousand CGS professionals
>employed. Movies like pirates of the carribean 2 and 3 are little more than
>albums of stunts and effects held together with a plotline hardly worthy of
>industry have slid over to making today's action-adventure bombs. Shoot
>the stunt sequences first, then slap in a little dialog to set them up
>and you're done.
Seriously, I doubt that any of them have; years ago I investigated
and observed that the "direction" in p*rn* is absolutely dreadful.
In the late 1980s I also saw a movie that was made by one of those
directors trying to make a "straight" fantasy movie, and it was
amazingly awful - the same lack of any acting talent, lack of any
directing ability, lack of a story (let alone a plot).
PiratesOfC 2 and 3 were orders of magnitude better. Trust me.
(PiratesOfC 2 was essentially a Warner Brothers cartoon, with Depp
as the Bugs Bunny clone - really. Watch him: dodges around a pole
while the Yosemite Sam character tries to shoot him, pole vaults
with a pole he's tied to, runs through shallow water with a "cartoon"
style of running.)
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>Paracelsus<petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>>Toon wrote:
>>> Paracelsus <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> With Deathly Hallows it is hard to think of a scene that is not
>>>> essential to the main plot. Harry and friends have to find and destroy
>>>> four horocruxes and then deal with Voldemort. That means at least five
>>>> or six big action scenes. On top of that you have to bring on the whole
>>>> Dumbledore backstory and somehow explain what the Deathly Hallows are.
>>>
>>> Pointless to the overall plot.
>>
>>Are you suggesting that you can make a movie called Harry Potter and
>>the Deathly Hallows without actually explaining what they are?
>
>No, I'm saying they were never needed, and a better side plot would
>have worked. Like it or lump it, the main plot was about Horcruxes,
>not legendary death tools. They were there to slow Harry down.
All the obstacles were there to slow Harry down.
The Hallows were the metaphorical touchstone that Dumbledore was
fascinated by, and he never completely overcame his fascination, though
he did overcome it enough to be willing to accept death when it was
inevitable, and to be able to think about it clearly enough to plan.
Where he failed was when he tried to bring his sister back, not trusting
that the stone would still function even after the horcrux was destroyed.
Because they are about conquering death, they also fascinated Voldemort
and Grindelwald before him. Harry is the one who overcame that temptation
much earlier than Dumbledore did.
>You can also get away with Hermione saying there's a legend that Death
>created an unbeatable wand, and the ultimate invisibility cloak (which
>Ron remembers that Harry's acts differently then the normal bunch)..
>The resurrection stone is not needed. Yes, Harry seeing his family
>will be a great scene, but no big loss if it's cut.
The stone isn't there just to show Harry his family.
The scene where Harry has company while he is walking to what
he fully expects to be his death is signifcant for the theme of
family and the theme of groups working together; he knows that
although he is physically alone, he is genuinely in the company
of those who have gone before. This helps give him the strength
to complete the job.
=Tamar
AZ Nomad
>PiratesOfC 2 and 3 were orders of magnitude better. Trust me.
>(PiratesOfC 2 was essentially a Warner Brothers cartoon, with Depp
>as the Bugs Bunny clone - really. Watch him: dodges around a pole
>while the Yosemite Sam character tries to shoot him, pole vaults
>with a pole he's tied to, runs through shallow water with a "cartoon"
>style of running.)
Except that the WB cartoons had a script before they started.
Toon
wrote:
>Because they are about conquering death, they also fascinated Voldemort
>and Grindelwald before him. Harry is the one who overcame that temptation
>much earlier than Dumbledore did.
He also has no desire for gold making stones or elixir of life.
Harry might be the only person to get all three Hallows, and have no
desire to use them. OK, the cloak as a kid, but I doubt he used it as
much as an adult.
Yellow
> In article <flqnt31ojf08emkhq...@4ax.com>,
> Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
> All the obstacles were there to slow Harry down.
> The Hallows were the metaphorical touchstone that Dumbledore was
> fascinated by, and he never completely overcame his fascination, though
> he did overcome it enough to be willing to accept death when it was
> inevitable, and to be able to think about it clearly enough to plan.
> Where he failed was when he tried to bring his sister back, not trusting
> that the stone would still function even after the horcrux was destroyed.
>
> Because they are about conquering death, they also fascinated Voldemort
> and Grindelwald before him. Harry is the one who overcame that temptation
> much earlier than Dumbledore did.
From reading the book, I was under the impression Voldemort completely
missed the Deathly Hallows bit and could not therefore have been
fascinated by them. He just wanted what he believed to be a powerful
wand.
Lyle Francis Delp
agreed. LV didn't know the true nature of the stone when
he made it into a horcrux. He only sought the wand near
the end, leading me to believe that he hadn't heard of
it prior to that. (Perhaps a DE related the legend of the
Deathstick to him "off camera".) He never showed any
interest in the cloak.
Being raised in a Muggle world, he would not have known
the Tale of the Three Brothers.
--
Lyle Delp
Yeah, Lyle Francis Delp! Ya wanna make somethin' outtavit?
DaveD
"Lyle Francis Delp" <Ld...@nystpen.gov> wrote in message
news:2008032206145975249-Ldelp@nystpengov...
Yes, interesting parallel - quite a few pure-bloods knew about it (and often
dismissed it as a children's story) whereas Harry and Hermione not being
pure-bloods hadn't heard of it, and similarly, neither had Voldy, he just
sought the Elder Wand merely for its innate powers whereas if he'd know
about the DH, he'd have been frantic to get hold of all three because of
what the three DHs could do together.
DaveD
Toon
wrote:
Too bad, or he'd have gotten the Resurrection Stone and given it to
Bellatrix or such loyal follower. He dies, then is brought back.
Surely the DH is what he'd want to own. So he could be the master of
Death, and thus avoid Death. Seems a waste for him to have missed
them.
Toon
<dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Yes, interesting parallel - quite a few pure-bloods knew about it (and often
>dismissed it as a children's story) whereas Harry and Hermione not being
>pure-bloods hadn't heard of it, and similarly, neither had Voldy, he just
>sought the Elder Wand merely for its innate powers whereas if he'd know
>about the DH, he'd have been frantic to get hold of all three because of
>what the three DHs could do together.
>
>DaveD
And with his DE's knowing all about his quest for immortality, none of
them bothered to mention the DH? Surely Bellatrix would, just to
score a few extra brownie points.
Yellow
As it is quite key to the tale that Voldemort is not aware of the
Hallows it doesn't actually make sense for him to be aware of them. :-)
But anyway, why would someone who didn't believe in the Hallows mention
them? I, a non religious folk, wouldn't suddenly start telling people I
socialise with that communion wine actually turns into the blood of
christ or that murdering nonbelievers will see you in heaven with more
virgins that you can shake a stick at, because I do not believe these
things to be true.
So for Bellatrix to have brought up the Hallows, she would have needed
to have believed in them first. And of course we have no evidence of
that whatsoever.
Drusilla
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:00:56 -0000, Yellow <ye...@please.no.spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Richard Eney [dic...@radix.net] said:
>>> In article <flqnt31ojf08emkhq...@4ax.com>,
>>> Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>>> All the obstacles were there to slow Harry down.
>>> The Hallows were the metaphorical touchstone that Dumbledore was
>>> fascinated by, and he never completely overcame his fascination, though
>>> he did overcome it enough to be willing to accept death when it was
>>> inevitable, and to be able to think about it clearly enough to plan.
>>> Where he failed was when he tried to bring his sister back, not trusting
>>> that the stone would still function even after the horcrux was destroyed.
>>>
>>> Because they are about conquering death, they also fascinated Voldemort
>>> and Grindelwald before him. Harry is the one who overcame that temptation
>>> much earlier than Dumbledore did.
>>From reading the book, I was under the impression Voldemort completely
>> missed the Deathly Hallows bit and could not therefore have been
>> fascinated by them. He just wanted what he believed to be a powerful
>> wand.
>
> Too bad, or he'd have gotten the Resurrection Stone and given it to
> Bellatrix or such loyal follower. He dies, then is brought back.
But the resurrection stone doesn't work in that way. Perhaps LV was
beyond DD, knowing it wasn't real in the way DD hoped to be real. And he
probably heard of the wand, but not because of the Tale but by other
sources.
Drusilla
But he didn't use it as the original owner. He didn't cover himself to
hide from LV because he feared he would find him. He covers himself in
the way to defeat him when he needed protection. Actually, it's the only
of the DH that he knows he can use for good, specially if he's an Auror.
Lyle Francis Delp
Most wizards considered the tale to be just that...a tale.
Only "kooks" like Lovegood were thought to believe
in the Hallows. Dumbledore didn't make them a part
of his normal conversations. I dought that even
Magonnagall knew of his fascination with them.
The DE's most likely didn't think them worthy of
mention...only thought them to be legend. But,
the wand was a different matter. There was a real
history there, part of which could be traced. Once
the issue of LV's wand vs. Harry arose, that was
most likely when a DE, very likely Bella, told LV
of the legendary wand.
Thom Madura
Well = DD would not want to talk about the Hallows because he had one of
them. It was unlike DD to not find out more about the elder wand - which
would have led him to the Hallows. At the same time - the cloak was left
in his charge to be given to Harry - so he was not the real owner of the
cloak and could not use it - but he didn't need it anyway.
Voldemort was involved in the ancient magic - just like Dumbledore.
Lyle Francis Delp
>> And with his DE's knowing all about his quest for immortality, none of
>> them bothered to mention the DH? Surely Bellatrix would, just to
>> score a few extra brownie points.
>
> Most wizards considered the tale to be just that...a tale.
> Only "kooks" like Lovegood were thought to believe
> in the Hallows. Dumbledore didn't make them a part
> of his normal conversations. I dought that even
> Magonnagall knew of his fascination with them.
I've got to stop typing after having a few beers.
:-)
Lyle Francis Delp
> Well = DD would not want to talk about the Hallows because he had one
> of them. It was unlike DD to not find out more about the elder wand -
> which would have led him to the Hallows.
On this, I disagree. I think he sought the Hallows from early
on and this was part of his plan with Grindelwald. They sought
the Hallows together.
Thom Madura
> On 2008-03-23 19:23:44 -0400, Thom Madura <Tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>
>> Well = DD would not want to talk about the Hallows because he had one
>> of them. It was unlike DD to not find out more about the elder wand -
>> which would have led him to the Hallows.
>
> On this, I disagree. I think he sought the Hallows from early
> on and this was part of his plan with Grindelwald. They sought
> the Hallows together.
>
He HAD Harry's cloak and Harry knew nothing about it or even that DD had
it. I think it is clear that DD was not looking for the Hallows until
after he gave the cloak back to Harry.
Lyle Francis Delp
I don't think that's clear at all. He was fascinated with the Hallows
as a youth and wanted them to help carry out the plan he and
Grindelwald were hatching. He says as much in the King's Cross
chapter. DD wanted the stone to bring back his family, but Grindelwald
saw it as an army of inferi. That indicates that DD sought the Hallows
as a youth, not just after he had Harry's cloak (finding that it
would never work as well for him as for its true owner).
He thought he was over this fascination, but then found the ring
and couldn't believe his luck. He just couldn't resist trying it
on. (Stupid move, as to activate it, he didn't really *need* to
wear it...just turn it over three times.)
Of course, he had the wand from 1945 onwards.
Toon
wrote:
Well, it wouldn't hurt to mention the legend. Voldemort's so
desperate to live, seems he'd go for any half rumor, just in case.
Did he have more than rumor about the Philosopher's Stone?
Toon
<gammanormi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>But the resurrection stone doesn't work in that way. Perhaps LV was
>beyond DD, knowing it wasn't real in the way DD hoped to be real. And he
>probably heard of the wand, but not because of the Tale but by other
>sources.
I'd figure he wouldn't know how it truly works, and then would try and
come back. A fate worse than death, the sort of half life it
provided.
Thom Madura
However - IF he really knew that the cloak was one of the Hallows - do
you really believe he would have turned it over to Harry at all. THe
last book established that Dumbledore was capable of deception and fraud
- and looked for the "greater good" over individuals like Snape or Harry.
Why would the ring trip his curiosity - and the cloak NOT do so? I
really don't believe he knew the cloak was one of the Hallows. After all
- it could only do something that HE could do without it. I would think
he was looking for a greater power. Otherwise - Harry would have never
received it.
Lyle Francis Delp
Flamel was famous. Any learned wizard would have read
of his success in alchemy. Hermoine did once she found
the right book. Riddle was a great student and probably
read of it at Hogwarts.
Lyle Francis Delp
He DID know it was one of the Hallows. He told Harry as much
in the King's Cross chapter. I never said that the cloak didn't
peak his curiosity. In fact it did. Once James showed it to
him, he asked to borrow it to examine it. James was killed and
DD had the cloak. He never wanted to keep it, though...only
examine it. When Harry came along, he gave it to Harry, the
rightful owner.
Thom Madura
Again - I still do not believe he really knew that it was one of the
Hallows at the time he HAD it. He told Harry that it peaked his
curiosity - BUT - it seems not enough for him to be convinced that it
was one of the hallows. I continue to believe that it did not appear to
be powerful enough for him to be convinced it was one of the Hallows.
If he really KNEW it was one of the Hallows - there was nothing
requiring him to give it back to Harry. Yes - that would have been the
honorable thing to do - but we now know that he was not entirely
honorable. If he really thought it was one of the Hallows - Harry simply
might never have learned about it - it seems no one else knew at the
time. Remember - he already HAD one of the Hallows. He was actually in
possession of two of them. If obtaining the hallows was an objective - I
cannot believe he would have given up the cloak if he knew.
Lyle Francis Delp
'Kay....that's your take. To me, Jo is clearly leading us to
think that DD knew what it was. As he had sought the
Hallows from youth to carry out his grand plan "for the
greater good", he chose not to use it. He knew his weakness
was power.
"Here was a cloak like no other I had ever seen." He almost
seems to say this line laced with awe and, yes, desire.
DD, more so than any other wizard, knew what
it was. He also knew that James hailed from Godric's
Hollow, where the third brother was buried. It's obvious
that he made the connection.
Even in the wizarding world, 2+2=4.
Thomas Gagne
> <snip>
> 'Kay....that's your take. To me, Jo is clearly leading us to
> think that DD knew what it was. As he had sought the
> Hallows from youth to carry out his grand plan "for the
> greater good", he chose not to use it. He knew his weakness
> was power.
One Ring. "Understand, Frodo. I would use this ring from a desire to do
good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to
imagine."
Of course, Gandolf knew the ring had a will of its own. I don't think
the Hallows have a will of their own, but Dumbledore knows at least two
of them, the wand and the stone, had less use for good than they did for
attracting the bad. The Elder Wand inspired covetousness and the threat
of duels. Nothing can bring back the dead, but it can let the dead
torture us to insanity.
Dumbledore's protection for the Philosopher's Stone was to charm it so
that only someone without the intention to use it could find it. It is
interesting that he thought later the same of Harry and the Hallows.
Because of what Harry saw in the Mirror of Erised Dumbledore was
confident Harry wouldn't /use/ the Hallows to corrupting ends.
--
Visit <http://blogs.instreamco.com/anything.php> to read
my rants on technology and the finance industry. Visit
<http://tggagne.blogspot.com/> for politics, society and culture.
Yellow
I disagree.
I am listening to the audio book at the mo (again :-) and lunch time was
hearing the fear in Bellatrix when she thought her vault had been broken
into. "He will kill us all!" she said, and demanded that Malfoy held off
summoning the Dark Lord until she knew how Harry had got the sword. This
chapter gives us an insight in to these characters and their
relationships.
Bellatrix may worship (indeed love IMO) Voldemort but by the same token
she is terrified of him, fearful of rattling his cage, fearful of what
he will do when things do not go to plan, fearful of who he will blame.
In this case, Bellatrix expected the whole household to be put to death
even though what she thought had occurred was outside of her control -
it just so happened to be her vault and her idea to store the sword and
the Horcrux in it.
So this begs the question why tell him about something that you believe
not to be true? Because you *want* your head blown off?
> Voldemort's so
> desperate to live, seems he'd go for any half rumor, just in case.
And when he found it all to be nonsense he would murder the messenger.
> Did he have more than rumor about the Philosopher's Stone?
If I recall correctly, the philosopher's stone was *not* a rumour.
DaveD
"Yellow" <ye...@please.no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.225082087...@nntp.dsl.pipex.com...
I don't know, I'd have expected someone to mention them in passing perhaps
as a joke. Then again, I guess you didn't make too many jokes around Voldy
:)
But still, I might have thought someone would have said something, given how
strongly they all knew Voldy felt about evading death - as Toon said, just
to earn a few brownie points. Which makes me once again think the Deathly
Hallows were a fairly late
creation of JKR's.
However, Dd does answer this point during the Kings Cross scene in DH, when
Harry asks him:
"'And Voldemort never knew about the Hallows?'
'I do not think so, because he did not recognise the Resurrection Stone he
turned into a Horcrux. But even if he had known about them, Harry, I doubt
that he would have been interested in any except the first. He would not
think that he needed the Claok, and as for the stone, whom woul.d he want to
bring back from the dead? He fears the dead. He does not love.'" (DH, UK
ed., p577).
So JKR does answer that question - but I'm still not sure I'm convinced,
lol.
DaveD
DaveD
"Thom Madura" <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:47e801de$0$15182$607e...@cv.net...
> Lyle Francis Delp wrote:
>> On 2008-03-24 08:54:49 -0400, Thom Madura <Tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>>
>>> Lyle Francis Delp wrote:
>>>> On 2008-03-23 19:23:44 -0400, Thom Madura <Tomm...@optonline.net>
>>>> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Well = DD would not want to talk about the Hallows because he had one
>>>>> of them. It was unlike DD to not find out more about the elder wand -
>>>>> which would have led him to the Hallows.
>>>>
>>>> On this, I disagree. I think he sought the Hallows from early
>>>> on and this was part of his plan with Grindelwald. They sought
>>>> the Hallows together.
Absolutely - see below!
>>> He HAD Harry's cloak and Harry knew nothing about it or even that DD had
>>> it. I think it is clear that DD was not looking for the Hallows until
>>> after he gave the cloak back to Harry.
>>
>> I don't think that's clear at all. He was fascinated with the Hallows
>> as a youth and wanted them to help carry out the plan he and
>> Grindelwald were hatching. He says as much in the King's Cross
>> chapter. DD wanted the stone to bring back his family, but Grindelwald
>> saw it as an army of inferi. That indicates that DD sought the Hallows
>> as a youth, not just after he had Harry's cloak (finding that it
>> would never work as well for him as for its true owner).
>>
>> He thought he was over this fascination, but then found the ring
>> and couldn't believe his luck. He just couldn't resist trying it
>> on. (Stupid move, as to activate it, he didn't really *need* to
>> wear it...just turn it over three times.)
>>
>> Of course, he had the wand from 1945 onwards.
>
> However - IF he really knew that the cloak was one of the Hallows - do you
> really believe he would have turned it over to Harry at all. THe last book
> established that Dumbledore was capable of deception and fraud - and
> looked for the "greater good" over individuals like Snape or Harry.
>
> Why would the ring trip his curiosity - and the cloak NOT do so? I really
> don't believe he knew the cloak was one of the Hallows. After all - it
> could only do something that HE could do without it. I would think he was
> looking for a greater power. Otherwise - Harry would have never received
> it.
Sorry Thom, but the answers are spelt out in DH!
Do you remember just before DH was published, JKR said the
question she would have liked to be asked was why Dd had James' cloak when
the Potters were murdered? I suspect she had just been writing the Kings
Cross scene in DH, as that's where the question is answered, by Dd saying
"You have guessed, I know, why the cloak was in my possession on the night
your parents died. James had showed it to me just a few days previously. It
explained much of his undetected wrongdoing at school! I could hardly
believe what I was seeing. I asked to borrow it, to examine it. I had long
since given up my dream of uniting the Hallows, but I could not resist,
could not help taking a closer look ... it was a cloak the likes of which I
had never seen, immensely old, perfect in every respect ... and then your
father died, and I had two Hallows at last, all to myself!" (DH, UK ed.,
p572)
Later in the Kings Cross scene, Dd explains how he was angry and bitter at
having to look after his sister, until Grindelwald came, "and at the heart
of our schemes, the Deathly Hallows! How they fascinated him, how they
fascinated both of us!" (DH, UK ed., p574).
Then Harry asks Dd if he tried to use the Resurrection Stone, and Dd relies
"When I discovered it, after all those years, buried in the abandoned home
of the Gaunts, the Hallow I had craved most of all - though in my youth I
had wanted it for very different reasons - I lost my head, Harry." (DH, UK
ed., p576)
So clearly, the Hallows *were* part of Dd's plan with Gw and he had been
looking for them for a long time :)
And so Dd did know - or at least, strongly suspect - that the cloak was one
of the DHs, yet he still gave it back to Harry.
DaveD
Thom Madura
Yes indeed - I finally got home to a copy of DH - a found the same
thing. And in reading it - it is obvious that once DD found the ring -
he knew where all three Hallows were - he had two - and he knew where
the cloak was. Yet - he did not try to unite the three? He explains that
off as Harry being the right person - but then he also explains that he
had planned for the Elder wand to go to Snape.
Sorry
DaveD
> DaveD wrote:
>> "Thom Madura" <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:47e801de$0$15182$607e...@cv.net...
>>> Lyle Francis Delp wrote:
>>>> On 2008-03-24 08:54:49 -0400, Thom Madura <Tomm...@optonline.net>
>>>>>> On 2008-03-23 19:23:44 -0400, Thom Madura <Tomm...@optonline.net>
>>> However - IF he really knew that the cloak was one of the Hallows - do
No problem :) At least this is one question where the answer *is* in the
books, and quite clear - unlike quite a few other answers that we're still
discussing. Roll on the encyclopaedia!
DaveD
Toon
<tga...@wide-open-west.com> wrote:
>Because of what Harry saw in the Mirror of Erised Dumbledore was
>confident Harry wouldn't /use/ the Hallows to corrupting ends.
Well, he had his naughty moments with the cloak. Like snowballing
Draco, even if he did deserve it. Then again, if you give a kid an
invisibility cloak, these things are bound to happen.
Toon
wrote:
>In this case, Bellatrix expected the whole household to be put to death
>even though what she thought had occurred was outside of her control -
>it just so happened to be her vault and her idea to store the sword and
>the Horcrux in it.
>
>So this begs the question why tell him about something that you believe
>not to be true? Because you *want* your head blown off?
Bigger question: Why store something that can destroy Horcruxes with a
Horcrux? You'd think she'd put one in the Black vault, and one in the
LeStrange Vault.
Toon
After Ariana's murder, he sought them more for novelty sakes then
world domination. Eventually, he gave up on them, as mere legend. he
had the wand first, but ignored what it was. He probably kept it as a
reminder of his and Grindevald's folly. Then he found out about James
cloak (why did James choose then to reveal it?) Seeing it, he
realized it could jolly well be a hallow, and then determined it was.
Suddenly, the wand made a whole lot more sense. Grindevald probably
talked about how he got it, and DD put two and two together. He had 2
hallows, and the one he desired most was out there after all. A decade
later of failure, he finally gave up, and returned the cloak to Harry,
knowing he'd need it to survive until he could die at the right time.
In the meantime, he began Horcruxing Hunting (which he apparently
sucked at, judging by the speed Harry found the rest), and learned the
Gaunt ring was the Hallow he always sought.
I believe his use of it was simply to apologize to Ariana. By now, he
knew he could not bring her back. And he's never risk finding out he
fired the fatal shot, not even to learn he didn't. I think he wanted
the guilt as an endless reminder of his folly. He just wanted to
apologize for not letting Aberforth care for her (well, he was being a
good big brother, albeit resentful).
Basically, by the time he gained ownership of the hallows, he had no
need for the hallows. The wand was to be kept from being passed
along, so he could end it's power. The Cloak had virtually no use to
him now, and the Stone was to make what little amends he could. And
that backfired big time.
But there's no way he could not have known what items he held,
separately. He never owned all 3 at once. I don't think anybody
short of Harry ever owned all 3, at the same time. And Harry had no
use for most of them. The Cloak, yes. Wand, no. Stone, only for
moral support in his final hour. If he wasn't going to die, he'd have
never used it.
Toon
<dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>I don't know, I'd have expected someone to mention them in passing perhaps
>as a joke. Then again, I guess you didn't make too many jokes around Voldy
>:)
>
>
>But still, I might have thought someone would have said something, given how
>strongly they all knew Voldy felt about evading death - as Toon said, just
>to earn a few brownie points. Which makes me once again think the Deathly
>Hallows were a fairly late
>creation of JKR's.
If I was a DE, I'd do it. If anybody could find them, I'd expect Big
V to. He'd love the wand. The stone is emergency backup, and I'd get
the Cloak. Even a skeptic would pursue a legend if there was value to
proving it. Let's say Nessie had the power to heal. Even the biggest
Skeptic would help seek her out to heal a loved one, if nothing else
worked.
Besides, once you start severing your soul, legends become worth it,
especially for a guy trying various methods.
If anything, he'd assign me with it, to get me out of his, erm, hair,
if I'm gonna suggest fairy tales.
>However, Dd does answer this point during the Kings Cross scene in DH, when
>Harry asks him:
>"'And Voldemort never knew about the Hallows?'
>'I do not think so, because he did not recognise the Resurrection Stone he
>turned into a Horcrux. But even if he had known about them, Harry, I doubt
>that he would have been interested in any except the first. He would not
>think that he needed the Claok, and as for the stone, whom woul.d he want to
>bring back from the dead? He fears the dead. He does not love.'" (DH, UK
>ed., p577).
>
>So JKR does answer that question - but I'm still not sure I'm convinced,
>lol.
Exactly. Why bring back someone, when you could entrust someone to
resurrect you. If all else fails in staying alive, wouldn't Voldemort
jump at the chance to own something that is supposed to bring back the
dead? If it's not a one use per person item, he'd be able to return
endlessly. Would he mind getting killed, if 5 minutes later he's
brought back? He does give Horcruxes to faithful followers to protect
them. Giving them the Stone would be the same thing.
heck, I'd make it a Horcrux. What's more significant then using a
resurector to house a soul bit so I can't die in the first place?
So, either DD or Voldemort (and Jo) never realized the true potential
of the Resurection Stone. Use it to have someone bring you back, not
just bring back people.
Of course, I'm sure he'd love to bring back dear old dad, so he can
kill him again. Heck, imagine the torture capabilities. Kill,
resurrect, repeat. Imagine how worse torture is, when you know you
can't even escape from it in death?
DaveD
"Toon" <to...@toon.com> wrote in message
news:07mku319u6jeko0dd...@4ax.com...
Indeed, he did exactly that! He just didn't realise he'd done it as he
didn't recognise the Resurrection Stone at the time!
> So, either DD or Voldemort (and Jo) never realized the true potential
> of the Resurection Stone. Use it to have someone bring you back, not
> just bring back people.
Presumably Bellatrix who seemed to be in love with him. The other DEs would
probably only have done it out of fear of what would happen if he came back
some other way and they hadn't resurrected him in the meantime!
But don't forget, it doesn't bring people back properly, neither "in real
life" as when Harry sees the echoes of his parents and Sirius etc. in the
forest, nor in the story where the girl brought back by the brother was "sad
and cold, as if separated from him by a veil. Though she had returned to the
mortal world, she did not truly belong there and suffered" (DH, UK ed.,
p332) and he goes mad and kills himself.
So I'm not sure Voldy'd be too happy being brought back like that - unless
unicorn blood helps, as it did before, and he can get properly resurrected
again like Wormtail did in the graveyard scene in GoF.
> Of course, I'm sure he'd love to bring back dear old dad, so he can
> kill him again. Heck, imagine the torture capabilities. Kill,
> resurrect, repeat. Imagine how worse torture is, when you know you
> can't even escape from it in death?
Now there's a nasty plot device - positively Promethean! No escaping the
truly evil wizard or witch if you upset them...
DaveD
Yellow
Indeed! :-)
Yellow
The Death Eaters did not know the true nature of the horcruxes. :-)
Drusilla
Yep. And I think it doesn't work as LV had hoped it would. It's not like
- as I see and understand it - the stone works for a person that had
died and want to come back, but it brings to the owner a person that had
already died and it's summoned by the owner. It's functions, I suppose,
was help you to let the dead person go peacefully as you have a last
chance to talk to them and even resolve unfinished business. In that
case, Bellatrix had brought him back, but, why? and in which form? a
ghost? some sort of specter?
Toon
<dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>But don't forget, it doesn't bring people back properly, neither "in real
>life" as when Harry sees the echoes of his parents and Sirius etc. in the
>forest, nor in the story where the girl brought back by the brother was "sad
>and cold, as if separated from him by a veil. Though she had returned to the
>mortal world, she did not truly belong there and suffered" (DH, UK ed.,
>p332) and he goes mad and kills himself.
But would Voldemrot accept that? Or think he can make it work right?
Be better than death even? I, who did what even Death could not, and
made the Resurection Stone work properly..
>So I'm not sure Voldy'd be too happy being brought back like that - unless
>unicorn blood helps, as it did before, and he can get properly resurrected
>again like Wormtail did in the graveyard scene in GoF.
Better than less than ghost or a baby thing. maybe going through the
arch the other way would bring him back in full.
Toon
wrote:
But didn't Voldemort know what she was doing? If so, he'd be against
such an idea.
Lyle Francis Delp
Perhaps LV hadn't put two and two together. He wasn't
physically present when Harry hilled the bassilisk, his
memory was. In fact, he was Vapormort at the time.
To him, it was just another sword. Perhaps he didn't
know it had imbibed the basillisk venom.
Correct my memory if necessary, but the DE's moved
the sword because some kids tried to steal it. I don't
think they or LV really knew what it could do (nor did Neville,
Ginny, or Luna).
Drusilla
IICR, they did. The kids knew the things that Harry had done when they
wanted him to teach him DADA. IICR, a Hufflepuff said that the Fat Friar
had told him what he had heard from one of the portraits in DD's office.
Yellow
I actually can't remember exactly how come the horcrux ended up in the
vault but should get to that bit again the next day or two. Perhaps in
the meantime someone else can help us out?
But in any case, when it comes to it, did Voldemort know the sword was
the mortal enemy of the horcrux? I know it saw off the diary but if he
did, surely he would have had it destroyed.
Hopefully it will all become clear to me when Harry and co get back into
that vault, after they have finished laying Dobby to rest of course
(sob!).
Lyle Francis Delp
They certainly knew that Harry killed the basillisk with the
sword, but they surely were NOT learned enough to know
that it would imbibe the characteristics of the fangs (venom).
Nor would they know that this turned the sword into a
Horcrux killer. They wanted to steal it because they thought
it was rightfully a Gryffendor's sword and also to spite
Snape, the headmaster they were rebelling against.
Thom Madura
When Voldemort was "resurrected" - in the book - he clearly said that
the DE's knew what he had done to protect himself from mortal death.
Bellatrix would have never used the Black vault - which was controlled
by the family. Sirius was clearly not a DE sympathizer and he had access
to the vault - he was actually the owner.
Lyle Francis Delp
> Toon wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:49:31 -0000, Yellow <ye...@please.no.spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Toon [to...@toon.com] said:
>>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:37:36 -0000, Yellow <ye...@please.no.spam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In this case, Bellatrix expected the whole household to be put to death
>>>>> even though what she thought had occurred was outside of her control -
>>>>> it just so happened to be her vault and her idea to store the sword and
>>>>> the Horcrux in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> So this begs the question why tell him about something that you believe
>>>>> not to be true? Because you *want* your head blown off?
>>>> Bigger question: Why store something that can destroy Horcruxes with a
>>>> Horcrux? You'd think she'd put one in the Black vault, and one in the
>>>> LeStrange Vault.
>>>>
>>> The Death Eaters did not know the true nature of the horcruxes. :-)
>>
>> But didn't Voldemort know what she was doing? If so, he'd be against
>> such an idea.
>
> When Voldemort was "resurrected" - in the book - he clearly said that
> the DE's knew what he had done to protect himself from mortal death.
Quote:
"They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against
mortal death?" (HPGoF p.648 US edition)
With some license, this could be interpreted either that they
knew all of this steps in detail (knowing he made multiple
horcruxes), or that they knew he took extensive steps without
knowing all of the details.
I agree it appears that they knew about the horcruxes, but
their behavior doesn't support that idea. They acted as
though they knew nothing about them. Lucius treated
the diary rather loosely, dropping it into the cauldron of
a witch whose family he regarded so lowly. Bella stowed
the cup in her vault, but then placed the Sword there
with it. (Of course, I don't think they really knew what the
Sword could do.)
>
> Bellatrix would have never used the Black vault - which was controlled
> by the family. Sirius was clearly not a DE sympathizer and he had
> access to the vault - he was actually the owner.
Thom Madura
You do not need license to read that statement and know that the DE's
knew what Voldemort had done. His line is a simple declarative sentence
- and it doesn't say - they knew that I had taken steps to protect
myself - it says - "They who knew the steps".
However - it just reinforces the lack of knowledge about Horcruxes, what
they are, what they do, how they are produced - etc. Not only do we know
very little about them - even the wizarding world has limited knowledge
- for even DD was wrong about Harry being one.
The de's behavior regarding the horcruxes supports that they knew about
them - they knew some of the objects Voldemort had made into horcruxes -
but their knowledtge was limited enough for them to make bad choices
about protecting them.
DaveD
"Lyle Francis Delp" <Ld...@nystpen.gov> wrote in message
news:2008032811103516807-Ldelp@nystpengov...
Dd, who's usually right in these things, says in HBP that the DEs didn't
know about the horcruxes, which istr JKR also confirmed.
However, personally I think that quote suggests they did know he was
creating horcruxes, not even just the one, although I doubt he told them
what the horcruxes were, and possibly not even how many. That would explain
why Lucius was so cavalier with the diary, for example, and Bellatrix with
the cup, though she might not have realised that GG's sword could destroy it
(then again, what's the betting there were quite a few other powerful magic
items that could also destroy a horcrux in that vault!)
DaveD
Thom Madura
AS we now know - DD got some things wrong - especially the one about
Harry being a Horcrux - which we now know is wrong.
I still believe that the subject of Horcruxes was under the title of
obscure banned magic (A murder was required) that few really knew about.
Even if they knew something - they did not know enough - even DD
didn't know everything about them.
I doubt many people even knew what COULD destroy a Horcrux - much less
that DD sword was on that list.
Toon
<dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Dd, who's usually right in these things, says in HBP that the DEs didn't
>know about the horcruxes, which istr JKR also confirmed.
>
>However, personally I think that quote suggests they did know he was
>creating horcruxes, not even just the one, although I doubt he told them
>what the horcruxes were, and possibly not even how many. That would explain
>why Lucius was so cavalier with the diary, for example, and Bellatrix with
>the cup, though she might not have realised that GG's sword could destroy it
>(then again, what's the betting there were quite a few other powerful magic
>items that could also destroy a horcrux in that vault!)
>
>DaveD
Bella's hysterics indicate she knew the cup was indeed a horcrux. I'm
beginning to think no one knew what the sword could do, just that if
those kids wanted it, they did not. Well, it was a fake, I was just
wondering the logic of putting a horcrux with a destroyer in the same
place. But if they didn't know it was a Hocrux Destroyer, then it
wouldn't matter.
So, was V going after the sword ever? Was it to be his Gryffendor
Horcrux? Or did he already know the danger it bore, and wanted it out
of the picture?
Thomas Gagne
> <snip>
>
>
> Bella's hysterics indicate she knew the cup was indeed a horcrux.
the cup was stolen. For a man with a splintered soul he seems unusually
predisposed to fits of emotional instability.
Where was it written that Bella knew what V's horcruxes were.
--
Visit <http://blogs.instreamco.com/anything.php> to read
my rants on technology and the finance industry. Visit
<http://tggagne.blogspot.com/> for politics, society and culture.
Drusilla
> Toon wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> Bella's hysterics indicate she knew the cup was indeed a horcrux.
> I think it only means she knew the Dark Lord would throw a hissy-fit if
> the cup was stolen. For a man with a splintered soul he seems unusually
> predisposed to fits of emotional instability.
>
> Where was it written that Bella knew what V's horcruxes were.
She only knew that her Master had trusted her with something valuable
and that she couldn't lose it. It could have been Mr. Quakers and he had
reacted the same.
Thom Madura
I continue to believe that Bellatrix and the other DE's at the
resurrection in GOF KNEW the steps Voldemort had taken to guard against
mortal death(See quote elsewhere in this thread if you need to). TO me -
that means that They (Including Bellatrix) at least knew that the cup
was keeping Voldemort alive. THese people - including Snape - were
masters at Dark Magic. We KNOW that Snape knew what a Horcrux was - it
hardly seems logical to assume that Bellatrix did not - even if
Voldemort did not tell her. Slughorn knew what a Horcrux was - and
Dumbledore refused to allow it to be taught at Hogwarts. That means that
the information was not truly secret. Hermione was able to get
information from the library.
This appears to be a case that some believe that the DE's were stupid
fools who were blindly following their master. Snape clearly was not
stupid - nor do I believe that Bellatrix was.
Drusilla
Mmm.. they could have known what a Horcrux was, that their Master had at
least one, but not necessarily that they were entrusted with the
Horcruxes. Although, I doubt they're that stupid anyway. Yes, probably
they knew about the Horcruxes but even if LV had given each of them a
blank piece of paper, it would have been something valuable for them.
Toon
<tga...@wide-open-west.com> wrote:
>Toon wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> Bella's hysterics indicate she knew the cup was indeed a horcrux.
>I think it only means she knew the Dark Lord would throw a hissy-fit if
>the cup was stolen. For a man with a splintered soul he seems unusually
>predisposed to fits of emotional instability.
I disagree. That's not a typical reaction to losing a gift from dear
old Lord V. She knew exactly what his reaction would be. If it were
just a trinket, she'd be Crucioed. She was in a panic over it,
because as far as she knew, they had one of his horcruxes, if not his
only horcrux, and probably already destroyed it (especially if the
truth of the diary came out).
Toon
I'm going to have to agree with Thom. They knew about horcruxes, even
multiple ones. I doubt he revealed how many, lest DD finds out (every
person who knows the exact number is a liability if captured).
Bellatrix, as the most loyal DE, was given a Horcrux for safe keeping.
She knew what it was. Maybe he didn't specify it, but she's no fool.
she knows what he's giving her. And the potential loss of it drew her
to panic. He saved her from the MOM. He'd not be so quick to kill
over a lost trinket. But a horcrux, yes, definitely.
Thomas Gagne
> Drusilla wrote:
>> Thomas Gagne escribió:
>>> Toon wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bella's hysterics indicate she knew the cup was indeed a horcrux.
>>> I think it only means she knew the Dark Lord would throw a hissy-fit
>>> if the cup was stolen. For a man with a splintered soul he seems
>>> unusually predisposed to fits of emotional instability.
>>>
>>> Where was it written that Bella knew what V's horcruxes were.
>>
>> She only knew that her Master had trusted her with something valuable
>> and that she couldn't lose it. It could have been Mr. Quakers and he
>> had reacted the same.
>>
>
> I continue to believe that Bellatrix and the other DE's at the
> resurrection in GOF KNEW the steps Voldemort had taken to guard
> against mortal death(See quote elsewhere in this thread if you need to).
wizard had gone. Did they know what "further" meant? I don't believe
even Dumbledore thought his DEs knew what it meant.
> TO me - that means that They (Including Bellatrix) at least knew that
> the cup was keeping Voldemort alive. THese people - including Snape -
> were masters at Dark Magic. We KNOW that Snape knew what a Horcrux was
> - it hardly seems logical to assume that Bellatrix did not - even if
> Voldemort did not tell her. Slughorn knew what a Horcrux was - and
> Dumbledore refused to allow it to be taught at Hogwarts. That means
> that the information was not truly secret. Hermione was able to get
> information from the library.
>
> This appears to be a case that some believe that the DE's were stupid
> fools who were blindly following their master. Snape clearly was not
> stupid - nor do I believe that Bellatrix was.
share all his secrets with his DEs. As Dumbledore suggested, any of
them that thought they were "close" to Voldemort were delusional.
Thom Madura
Again - You are assuming from the wrong side. As I said - Snape knew
what a horcrux was - without Voldemort Telling him. Their kids
notwithstanding - the DE's we not just a band of stupid idiots put
together by Voldemort - that would not have been like him. His DE's were
powerful wizards in their own right - what they did to Neville's parents
alone proves that. They were likely well trained (Self-trained maybe) in
the Dark Arts.
If Slughorn could know about Horcruxes, and Hermione could "read up on
the subject" - then those trained in the Dark Arts likely knew what one
was without the help of Voldemort. WE KNOW that Snape did - and Regulus
did figure it out - and I continue to believe that Bellatix and the
others also did. Once Voldemort turned up again - it didn't take much to
add one and one up to figure out how he was still alive - ON THEIR OWN.
People Like Dumbledore and Voldemort - who are as secretive about their
plans - forget that others are not blind to the things that are
happening. I doubt - for instance - that Voldemort told Dumbledore that
he made Horcruxes - yet somehow Dumbledore figured it out. It seems that
nobody told Harry and the OOP what objects were the Horcruxes - he
managed to figure that out too.
Toon
<tga...@wide-open-west.com> wrote:
>I thought they only heard him say he'd gone further than any other
>wizard had gone. Did they know what "further" meant? I don't believe
>even Dumbledore thought his DEs knew what it meant.
I'm pretty sure he specifies them knowing. Of course, how much of
that further is anyone's guess. Horcrux for sure. How many? What
items?
Yellow
According to the last book, Harry believes that Dumbledore thought that
the death eaters did *not* know. Source - the chapter where they are
planning to break in to the vault and they discuss both the Horcrux they
believe (at this point) to be in the vault and the diary.
Of course we do not know if Harry is correct or not in his belief but
why would JK have included this info if not to inform the reader that
the death eaters knew that certain objects were precious, very precious,
but not *how* precious? This snippit is after all quite key to the
story.
Thom Madura
The Quote from GOF is (PAge 684 US version)
Voldemort is Talking to the DE's
"And then I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not
rise again? THEY WHO KNEW THE STEPS I TOOK, LONG AGO, TO guard myself
against mortal death"
The quote is specific - "THEY WHO KNEW THE STEPS" and pretty much
verifies that the DE's knew that Voldemort had made Horcruxes (Steps is
plural).
Harry was Wrong in his conclusion - which is surprising since he was in
the scene in GOF as well.
Yellow
Indeed, but this does *not* say that the death eaters knew about the
horcruxes. If JK wanted us to think that the death eaters definitely
knew about the horcruxes (as against undefined "steps") she would
perhaps have used words that said so instead of deliberately leaving it
so vague.
>
> Harry was Wrong in his conclusion - which is surprising since he was in
> the scene in GOF as well.
Or perhaps you are just wrong is yours. Either that or JK wrote the
later scene just to fuck with your head. :-)
Thom Madura
Along with my other post - I continue to believe that the DE's did
indeed know about the Horcruxes. The DE's were masters at the Dark Arts
- and at the very least - Snape knew about Horcruxes. (Even without
Voldemort telling him). Slughorn knew about them even though DD
prevented them from being taught at Hogwarts. Hermione was able to look
them up in the Library. The Centaurs knew what Voldemort was after the
backfire spell. It would be hard to say that a group of master Dark Arts
Specialists didn't know about Horcruxes.
However - the quote is not at all vague - it says - clearly - that the
DE"S knew the steps he took. At least one of the steps he took was to
create horcruxes - so the DE's knew about them. It is hard to call that
vague - unless you need everything spelled out in the most complete
sentences with every possibility covered completely - something you are
not going to get in a mystery book from any writer who intends to sell
the books.
>
>> Harry was Wrong in his conclusion - which is surprising since he was in
>> the scene in GOF as well.
>
> Or perhaps you are just wrong is yours. Either that or JK wrote the
> later scene just to fuck with your head. :-)
Hard to believe that JKR wrote anything to create suspense - isn't it?
>
Toon
wrote:
Stranger, if V did say it, Harry was present in the Graveyard at the
time. With all he remembered, how could he forget they did know.
Toon
wrote:
We know they know the steps he took. We know those steps involve
Horcruxes. Logic dictates they know he made Horcruxes. Not how many,
not which were Horcruxes (except for Bellatrix and the cup), but he
made Horcruxes. Posilby only one Horcrux, but, still they know he has
to have done it once.
She sued steps merely to hid horcruxes from us until HBP. Though if
you knew about those types of things from literature, you'd recognize
the diary as one.
Yellow
That's fine as you are quite at liberty to believe what you wish. :-)
>
>
> >
> >> Harry was Wrong in his conclusion - which is surprising since he was in
> >> the scene in GOF as well.
> >
> > Or perhaps you are just wrong is yours. Either that or JK wrote the
> > later scene just to fuck with your head. :-)
>
>
> Hard to believe that JKR wrote anything to create suspense - isn't it?
Indeed, but I would have expected the suspense first and answers
(truths?) second rather than the other way around. :-p
BubblyBabs
"Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:13tjo1f...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <1MiCj.85978$w94.73587@pd7urf2no>,
> Paracelsus <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>>Bill Glaholt wrote:
>>> On 2008-03-13, Garondo Marondo <Classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Warner Bros. has conjured up some Hollywood
>>>> magic for the final installment of the wildly popular "Harry Potter"
>>>> movies, splitting the seventh and final book into two films, the movie
>>>> studio said on Thursday.
>>>>
>>> <snippage>
>>>
>>> Gah. About three movies too late. GoF, OooP, and HBP should all have
>>> been two.
>>
>>Better late than never. With GoF and OotP it was possible to make cuts
>>without too much damage.
> <snip>
>
>>With Deathly Hallows it is hard to think of a scene that is not
>>essential to the main plot. Harry and friends have to find and destroy
>>four horocruxes and then deal with Voldemort. That means at least five
>>or six big action scenes. On top of that you have to bring on the whole
>>Dumbledore backstory and somehow explain what the Deathly Hallows are.
>
> There will also be the whole Snape backstory. It looks as though quite
> a lot of the movie - both movies - will be flashbacks, I wonder where
> the between-movies break will be. Anyone want to guess? My guess is
> that the first movie will end with Harry and the gang flying out of
> Gringotts, with lots of CGI and probably something done to remind people
> of the end of PoA.
>
> =Tamar
Hopefully they can make the Gringotts break-in seem far less ridiculous in
the movie than it was in the book...
Babs
BubblyBabs
"Paracelsus" <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:E7bDj.90536$pM4.72714@pd7urf1no...
> Toon wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:05:28 GMT, "DaveD"
>> <dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> "Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
>>> news:13tjo1f...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> In article <1MiCj.85978$w94.73587@pd7urf2no>,
>>>> Paracelsus <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Bill Glaholt wrote:
>>>>>> On 2008-03-13, Garondo Marondo <Classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Warner Bros. has conjured up some Hollywood
>>>>>>> magic for the final installment of the wildly popular "Harry Potter"
>>>>>>> movies, splitting the seventh and final book into two films, the
>>>>>>> movie
>>>>>>> studio said on Thursday.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snippage>
>>>
>>>> a lot of the movie - both movies - will be flashbacks, I wonder where
>>>> the between-movies break will be. Anyone want to guess? My guess is
>>>> that the first movie will end with Harry and the gang flying out of
>>>> Gringotts, with lots of CGI and probably something done to remind
>>>> people
>>>> of the end of PoA.
>>>>
>>>> =Tamar
>>>
>>> a high.
>>>
>>> DaveD
>>
>> So, just where is the midpoint of the book? What's happening halfway
>> through the book, page wise?
> SPOILER SPACE
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> The mid-point in my edition is the chapter The Silver Doe. It ends with
> Ron's return and the destruction of a horocrux. It also makes a good
> ending point if the film makers want to end the first film on a positive
> note. It will also be a very emotionally challenging scene for the three
> leads. This is where we'll see if they really have what it takes to make
> it as adult actors.
>
Hell, guess that leaves Emma out...
Babs
santosh
> "Paracelsus" <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:E7bDj.90536$pM4.72714@pd7urf1no...
<snip>
>> The mid-point in my edition is the chapter The Silver Doe. It ends
>> with Ron's return and the destruction of a horocrux. It also makes a
>> good ending point if the film makers want to end the first film on a
>> positive note. It will also be a very emotionally challenging scene
>> for the three leads. This is where we'll see if they really have what
>> it takes to make it as adult actors.
>>
>
> Hell, guess that leaves Emma out...
And Rupert too. But perhaps he was deliberately told to underact and
sulk in the background to give Dan and Emma the spotlight. Never seen
him act outside HP.
Toon
<ng_at_fracta...@ng.com> wrote:
>Hopefully they can make the Gringotts break-in seem far less ridiculous in
>the movie than it was in the book...
Hopefully they can make the camping trip a whole lot less log and
boring than in the book.
Why not use PJ and just stay in hotels?