Why didn't voldemort turn a leaf into a horcrux and put it in a random forest

>why didn't voldemort turn a leaf into a horcrux and put it in a random forest

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=y71u6ecF4cI
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>why didn't voldemort turn the earth itself into a horcrux?

You're now beginning to question the logic of the Harry Potter movies. Don't go down that road, the series will just completely fall apart. These are nothing more than surface level entertainment flicks, well made, visually interesting, comfy atmosphere, great characters that you like, but don't go into these movies thinking there is substance and depth. As soon as you start questioning things the movie falls a part.

This. It's a kid's book, questioning the logic of Harry Potter is like questioning the logic of Narnia.

I can't help but to notice wizards go from calling out their attacks to not having to do that later.

Consistency is a problem.

>why didn't he just bury the horcruxes in a landfill like all those Atari ET cartridges?

you can do a well made children story like harry potter without turning the characters into idiots

this isn't an issue but is

Did they ever explain that whole "only voldemort can kill Harry" bullshit?

Narnia becomes easier to understand if you understand it occurs in a dimension between life and death where time "your life flashes before your eyes" goes faster than it does in the mortal world.

"No!"

Dullposter where are you?

>a biodegradable, edible, flimsy horcrux
Genius

it was a prophecy
>only 1 can kill the other
Harry can't be killed by anyone but voldemort and vice versa

use magic to turn into a non biodegradable, edible and flimsy item

>only Voldemort can kill Harry
What, when was that implied, Harry never was immortal

Much like leaves fall when autumn comes, the age of maturity wipes away any interest a functioning human being has in 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 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.

>no image
>no reply to OP
4/10

Why are you even trying to find logic in a childrens series bassd off of one the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises,soyim? 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.

>soyim
Please don't ruin a good pasta with Sup Forums shit thanks

The logic is that Voldemort was too proud to make something simple like a rock or a leaf into a horcrux, and instead he chose specific and important objects and hid them in places that held significance to him. They cut most of the backstory out of the movies.

In the books they learn in later years how to perform spells without saying them out loud. It's supposedly more difficult which explains why they couldn't do it when they were younger.

Did you miss the part that the Horcrux had to be an object important for the person?

Yes, because there's no part about that
Voldemort did it because he wanted to, but it doesn't need to be an object important for the person

Because the books made it very clear that he is a sentimental person and all the horcrux are things important to his past.

DEH

>make a phoenix a horcrux
>live forever

That would also explain why he didn't use a random leaf though.

LOL WHY DIDNT VOL d'EMORT TURN UR PENIS INTO A HOLOCRUIX NOBODY WOULD EVER FIND IT XDDD

Magical leaf in a forest is easy to find with magic. You have to make horcrux hard to reach, not hard to find.

They explain this one away pretty easily by saying that you can do spells without saying anything, but it's more difficult so only adults pull it off. Even in the first few books and movies, the adult wizards are able to do stuff without saying a word.

LOL!

Hahaha sounds like WHOREcrux.

But Harry was an horcrux and when he died the horcrux ceased to exist, when he came back to life he wasn't an horcrux anymore

If you made a phoenix an horcrux, you would lose it the first time it died.

Hm since every flaw so far has been countered, what are some actual plotholes?

That's the only part I didn't understand, how did he come back to life?

Why didn't Voldemort make anal beads into horcruxes and hid them in his butthole?

>what are some actual plotholes

Time turners.

why didn't voldamorte turn harry's dick into a horucrux? Harry would have to destroy his own cock to kill voldamorte.. probably wouldn't be able to make that decision

Ahh shit now it's all coming back.. the time turners and the luck potions and all.. fugg

Why didn't Voldemort apparate to the dark side of the moon and put all his horcruxes there?

There is a range restriction and it might be necessary to kind of know the place already.

he used the ressurection stone

how about sticking a horcrux up his own ass
since he's immortal there would be no way to get to it

But I thought the stone can't actually bring anyone back?!

It would get shit out and then he has to go through his own shit all the time. He could have sowed it into a body cavity. But I think the whole point is to not carry it around with yourself/be reliant on keeping your body.

yes you are right, he used to stone to talk to his parents, sirius and the werewolf teacher
i think it had to do something with the elder wand, like it belonged to harry and you cant kill someone with his own wand

This.
He has too much pride. To put a part of his soul in something as simple as a leaf or a random rock is below him. Only the best would be good enough for the greatest wizard of all time

He didn't actually die. The Avada Kedavra killed the horcrux part in him but it didn't kill him
At least, that's how I understood it

Of course, Dumbledore didn't know it would happen like that (it might've happened like that because having all the Hallows made Harry a master of Death?) and was just planning on straight up sacrificing Harry

They actually found the ET cartridges.
youtube.com/watch?v=y71u6ecF4cI

Magonegal always says it out loud though even snape says it in prisoner of Azkaban when he thinks the kids are in trouble surely not saying it out loud is quicker and faster?

Just because they can doesn't mean they always do, maybe saying it requires less concentration for adults, or it could be an involuntary thing in high-stress situations where they feel panicked/under pressure.

Because he's an arrogant prick.

yeah but snape is supposed to be pretty smart right? would he not master it so he can have any advantage?

>>why didn't voldemort turn a leaf into a horcrux and put it in a random forest
>random fire kills voldemort