Why didn't voldemort just slit harry's throat?

why didn't voldemort just slit harry's throat?

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217504/Are-old-spoon-Woman-asked-ID-buying-teaspoons-Tesco.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

he zapped like 500 people to death, he didn't think a little baby was going to be a problem

harry had the mark of love which means that as soon as the knife touched his skin voldemort's dick would dry up

Because that would have been the end of a very profitable, but easily one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects—all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody—just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books are g-g-good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King

Because of love.

People can say what they want, I admire you.

>no pic
How can anyone fuck up this badly?

Why didnt you pay attention to the movies and books? Voldemort couldn't touch Harry at all.

why didn't voldemort hire a gang of pakis and forged a robbery that went wrong?

Only a dullard would post about true literature and forget to include a picture, but perhaps we've all been made a bit dull by one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects—all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody—just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books are g-g-good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King

Why is he wearing Blues Clues PJs years before that show existed?

i bet his knife could though

Delete this

I didn't know you hate your copycats, man.

Not everything was going as he had foreseen.

Why would he dirty himself and the floor when there's a convenient spell to do such a thing for him? More importantly, that's how muggle would kill people, not a refined wizard.

basically what you're saying is that if it came to an all out war between humans and wizards, we'd kill the fuck out of them with our rifles and knives, they could do literally nothing with their faggy wands and buzzwords

Because wizards are retarded.

Should I read Methods of Rationality or whatever it's called?

He was an ego maniac and loved going AAAAAAVADA KEDAVRA

No its crap. I'm actually reading one called hermione granger and the goblet of fire and its pretty good

British self deprecation

>Only a dullard would post about true literature and forget to include a picture, but perhaps we've all been made a bit dull by one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises.

Just so you know, the day you'll die I'll die a little inside too

Because Rowling is a hack.

Autism I hope you both spontaneously combust

because its for kids not adults!

Because cutlery isn't that easy to get in England.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217504/Are-old-spoon-Woman-asked-ID-buying-teaspoons-Tesco.html

kek that made me chuckle
stay mad

because its a series for children

>Perhaps the die was cast
like the cast died or someone threw some dice and roll a seven wtf

She's ugly btw

Reminder its basically a dystopia with wizards. It's not perfect at all

i disagree but respect your opinion

Because it's a kids movie and wizards hate regular people weapons or some shit

This copypasta will never get old

>an id for a fucking spoon
fucking christ

Why didnt he kidnap him and sell him on the black market?

It would have saved him a lot of trouble but noooooooo gotta use that fucking wand every five fucking seconds, no matter how many times it backfires.

Could a .45?

what is the mark of love and why didn't other wizards use it to save each other from death

what is more, why didn't wizards all put themselves into portraits when they died just like the heads of hogwarts to save themselves from death

This lol...

That was the one thing that bothered me throughout the entirety of this series. If you're going to make "love" this tangible power, why is Harry the only one to receive it? Is no one else loved in the world?

It doesn't save you from death, it just preserves some facsimile of your personality
It was something intangible that happened just in the right moment. It's not every kid whose mother died protecting him, Harry and Voldemort were connected by fate

>A Tesco spokesperson said: 'Some utensils, such as knifes, will carry a 'Think 25' alert when scanned through the checkout. There is an element of common sense involved and this was a mistake, for which we are sorry.'

A mistake, not policy.

because woman are shit writers.

Want her to pee on me tbqh

Google 'die cast metal' you retard.