Wait, what the hell?

Wait, what the hell?
Did harry actually died and then revived?
but why?

Jesus metaphors. Or did you miss the old beardy guy in robes setting him up to die in order to save the world?

The part of Voldemort's soul in Harry was killed. Harry himself was just unconscious.

There's an explanation in the book but I can't remember what it was. Basically the last HP was hackwork, big surprise.

How do you not understand? Dumbeldore treats harry and the audience like retards and tells exactly what happened.

Or was he not explicit enough for you?

Wow, it's obviously a too deep a metaphor for you, only understood by Harry Potter fans who are smart. I'm going to give you a hint and tell you that J.K. Rowling is a lifelong Christian, so maybe you can put two and two together ;)

Inb4 THAT pasta

Explain it then

Man, kingdom hearts 3 is looking better every day.

>It looks like King’s Cross station. Except a lot cleaner, there are no niggers as far as I can see.

and I thought Rowling was progressive

Yes, we get it, it's a Jesus allegory. If only Harry had died in the first book, then we might have been "saved" from having to watch one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises. Seriously 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 were 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.

The opening line and the "No!" is what I always come into these threads for

It's left ambiguous.

>Is this real, or is it all in my head?
>Of course it's all in your head, but why does that mean it isn't real?

Basically Voldemort only managed to kill the bit of his soul that was possessing Harry. It's left up to the reader to decide if Harry himself also died and came back, or if that train station sequence was one of those "near death experience" hallucinations.

Learned it from Gandalf, can't you tell by the picture?

Harry had all three of the Deathly Hallows, the wand, the cloak, and the ring. Hence he couldn't die.

Better intro than most, 8/10

based guy who hates harry potter guy

I think this scene was butchered. It's a shame because the book material is really great when Dumbledore was so excited to talk to him.

still sneedling like a retard reading it

Here
The only thing that died in that sequence was the part of voldemorts soul and that was in harry

The little Gollum in the fetal position is a representation of what is left of voldemorts soul. Harry asks what happened to it and dumbeldore says it has suffered a fate much worse than death which also implies that harry is not dead at any point and this scene is simply a vision he is having while he is unconcious.

>I can't comprehend children's movies

What did op mean by this?

>hairy cutting through dumblydore's giggling at him thinking it's king's cross in a cruel way

Post-Dobby'sdeath Harry is my favourite

Based pasta

Basically when Voldemort tried to kill Harry as a baby, his death curse reflected back on himself and sense his soul was so unstable that his physical form was destroyed and a piece of his soul went into Harry effectively making him a horcrux. So when he tried to kill Harry again he ended up destroying his last horcrux

9/10 intro. Very good indeed.

no he didn't die, he was unconscious after Voldemort killed the piece of his own soul that was inside Harry. apparently that scene in KR is an hallucination but its implied by Dumbledore that he could've chosen to "die" at that moment and move on (-where- it's not specified)

terrible thread zach