the "Why didn't they just shoot Voldemort?" thread
- Thread starter DudeistBelieve
- Start date
That would have been hilarious to see Hermione and Harry, spawn camping Voldermort with rifles. Gunning him down, then hanging around waiting for him to revive himself, before gunning him down again.SaneAmongInsane said:
While I quite agree that your sniper plan would have worked, I'm not sure how a bunch of teenagers would have gotten a sniper rifle in Britain. The USA? Difficult, but possible. The UK? Not so much.SaneAmongInsane said:
At best, they might have gotten a hunting rifle. Not nearly as much range or punch.
It would probably cost a lot of lives for muggles to figure out the extent of magic capabilities. (teleporting would confuse them and make it dificult to pinpoint his location) Rather than I sniper team I would just carpet bomb any area wizards were thought to be in.coolbeans21 said:
Furthermore, there is no way to stop a bullet (unless there is a permanent ward I do not know of) The only warning is a slight flash over a mile away and now you have less than 2 seconds left to live. With a flash surpresser its even less and with the bullet traveling at supersonic it is silent for the target. With now warning Voldemort can't put up any wards to save his life. All in all impossible to survive (unless you can live your torso splattered on the nearest tree)
ON an entirely different note don't forget Molly and Ebenezer. And the Dresden's universe could destroy The Harry Potter one (imagine mab just obliterating everyone)
It doesn't matter if they can't plot the location. Imagine WWII air raids, just launching dumb bombs where wizards(guaranteed to be some that would help muggles) told them to. Also muggles can enter wizarding areas(they see Hogwarts as an old ruin) the wards surrounding it dissuade the muggles from going there and the wizards wipe their memories if they did. I also really do like the book series though and when I read a book I generaly ignore all plot holes unless they are incredibly bad. The OP's post simply brought that one to my attention. AND it is the internet where everything can be put under debateRylingo said:
I didn't really get that impression, at least not the same as the ending of Return of the Jedi as (spoilers?) the Empire was not defeated by Luke being the best at fighting and defeating the Emperor in martial combat, but convincing his father to turn from the Dark Side.SnakeoilSage said:
That was why Luke was the chosen one, not because he was the best fighter to destroy Vader, but that only Anakin's son could possibly convince him to return.
Yoda and Obi Wan kept saying he was not ready to "face" or "confront" Vader.
Luke: "I can't kill my father"
Obi Wan: "then the Emperor has already won"
Did Obi Wan dismay that Luke said he couldn't kill his father... or dismay that Luke thought his purpose was to kill him? I don't care about Lucas' actual intention, the DVD in my collection is set (can't get that one Georgie boy!) and open to interpretation. Maybe none of the characters actually knew HOW a (Luke) Skywalker would end Palpatine's evil reign, just that he would.
In the end, Harry Potter WAS just about him killing Voldermort. He found all the Horcruxes through cunning, luck and a bit of magical providence. Harry's "power of love" manifested itself simply in him being more powerful at magic shit-kicking. It wasn't like Vorldermort was undone by an inherent part of his evil.
The Emperor WAS undone by his evil, by almost torturing Luke to death, even after he had spared Vader and refused to fight Palpatine nor give in to the dark side, that was the motivation for Vader/Anakin to strike down his evil master. The last thing the Emperor would expect for his most slavishly loyal protector to turn on him. His evil made him under-appreciate the love a father had for his son. This act undid what had apparently been a self-evident truth that hate made people stronger, as Luke saw when he attacked and defeated Vader in a rage over the suggestion he would turn Leia. But it was suddenly subverted to be that empathy - the need to protect others - was the source of that strength.
You don't really get that same depth of conflict between emotions of your own selfish well-being and emotions for others.
And before you say this ending comparison is unfair; Both Luke and Harry willingly gave themselves up to the evil side after they (on their own initiative) concluded their presence is jeopardising their friends, where they ultimately stood before the Great Evil to be struck down.
The difference is Luke was saved by the Emotions, feelings and reasoning of another CHARACTER, in a profound and unexpected way: Vader's defection. Harry was saved by Deus Ex machina, a contrivance that the penultimate Horcrux was in him and that somehow that doesn't kill him, even though every other Horcrux was destroyed by destroying the host object/organism.
And once the final Horcrux was gone with Neville's blow-up-the-death-star moment decapitating that snake, Harry out zapped Voldermort in magic zapping contest. Voldermort ultimately was defeated because "Harry's love" had more destructive power. That defies what "love" should be.
Love should prevail not through strength but unity. As Vader united with his son against the emperor. As Sam and Frodo's platonic friendship allowed them to endure and finally destroy the One Ring. The Terminator lowering himself into molten steel to prevent a horrible war of the machines.
Also, Luke has some very human crisis of faith along the way, he is taunted by the Emperor into trying to strike him down though eventually tries to reason with his father.
That is why I am really not so moved by Harry Potter. I still am in awe of Luke of the Original Star Wars trilogy. It's jsut damn near perfect.
Voldermourt was brought up as a muggle. He would have a basic knowledge of human weaponry. How far away can Voldermourt read minds? Very far away. He enters the minds of everyone in Hogwarts to send them messages from a distance. This is from outside the grounds. He can read the minds of people using rifle, from a distance. Snipers are literally the only gun that has a hope and even then, multiple headshots are a must. Even then its not a plot hole as Voldermourt would be aware of when muggles with long range weaponry become involved and would probably protect himself for such an occasion.SmegInThePants said:
And if Voldermourt takes the precaution to make his position unplottable to muggles? Bunker busters might be dangerous. Drones, missiles and helicopters, not in the slightest. With a single slick of a wand a drone or helicopter would be removed from the air. Even a simple charm like flippendo could take them out. Missiles could be fooled in an almost uncountable number of ways. Simply taking control of the object and flicking it away like a fleck of dust comes to mind.SmegInThePants said:
You can't carpet bomb something when you can't even pinpoint its location. All major wizarding areas are unplottable due to wildly used wizard magic which can be performed by even weak wizards.janjotat said:
No muggles can enter, or find, or plot on a map a wizarding area.
Im off to bed. Ill counter anything interesting I see tomorrow. Honestly if you haven't read the (vastly superior) books then trying to pick plot holes is silly. Most of these have already been explained in the books.
Familiar with World of Darkness 'Mage' at all?
The whole paradox system might apply. Shit works the way it does because we *believe* it should. Nothing exists without belief, basically, and that includes physical laws.
In Mage, if 'magic' is used in front of the unenlightened (let's say muggles, for arguments sake), it fucks their perception of reality. When someone sees a bald snake-man hurling green fire from a stick .. they say 'this shit ain't real'. And hey presto, it ain't.
I like to think that the wizards in Harry Potter's world likewise keep the hell out of the muggle world because it would kill their magic by the majority of humans not believing in it. Likewise with technology back in the magic world.
The whole paradox system might apply. Shit works the way it does because we *believe* it should. Nothing exists without belief, basically, and that includes physical laws.
In Mage, if 'magic' is used in front of the unenlightened (let's say muggles, for arguments sake), it fucks their perception of reality. When someone sees a bald snake-man hurling green fire from a stick .. they say 'this shit ain't real'. And hey presto, it ain't.
I like to think that the wizards in Harry Potter's world likewise keep the hell out of the muggle world because it would kill their magic by the majority of humans not believing in it. Likewise with technology back in the magic world.
nice to have a couple people not trying to crap down this guys throat. while its pretty pointless to debate this in the first place, this is kind of a loophole. but since we're doing this, why dont they use timeturners to save the potters, stop voldemort at any point, save dumbledore or really any number of things (as soon as you play with time magic the rules start to break down). for that matter, why didnt the eagles fly frodo to mordor (not too busy to take gandalf off a tower)?
On one hand your argument is stupid because you're talking about a guy who can see through the eyes of other people and disappear in a puff of smoke. You'd also have to find someone who can actually navigate around the magical parts of the world (which according to the stories are invisible non-magic folk) and can operate a gun with a degree of accuracy and the reflexes to shoot dead a guy who can move faster than the eye can follow and kill with a thought.SaneAmongInsane said:
On the other less literal side of things you're also talking about a metaphor for white supremacy/racism in general. What kind of lesson is it to say "Why don't we just kill all the genocidal maniacs?"
Voldemort is a sort of magical Fuhrer (not Hitler specifically), the death eaters are Nazis, Muggles take the role of Jews in WWII. Muggle sympathisers and mud-bloods are killed indiscriminately. The Harry Potter books are basically the Holocaust+Magic.
I say Voldemort is not a direct analogy for Hitler because he encompasses the idea that though you may kill one genocidal maniac, another will spring up in his place - thus the sub-plot about horcruxes.
You've clearly thought about this a lot, but you haven't thought your arguments through nearly enough.
Because they were all destroyed in the 5th book I believe. They were destroyed before the ministry accepted that voldermourt was back. They had no reason to use the devices if they didn't believe voldermourt was alive.caviar1 said:
The real question is why would the ministry keep such powerful devices all in one place. That mistake led to them being destroyed. Arrogance more than a plot hole really.
Yeah, I prefer Jedi's approach but then there's that "father-son" angle that Harry Potter lacks.Treblaine said:
The books do a better job of explaining it, but my observation is sound: Harry's love strengthens his friends, while Voldemort's evil leads to self-destruction. Think about it: every "advantage" Voldemort gains against Harry backfires on him, from attacking Lily and James Potter to stealing the Elder Wand. His hatred for Harry Potter isn't based on anything Harry himself has done, but Voldemort attacks Harry again and again, convinced that Harry has to die in order for Voldemort himself to live.
Two things can solve that universe's entire problem with that voldemort guy.
1. An unused condom.
2. Time turner.
That or a high powered sniper rifle and a time turner. Honestly, just combine anything with a time turner! And they're easy to get, they apparently just hand them out to good students.
1. An unused condom.
2. Time turner.
That or a high powered sniper rifle and a time turner. Honestly, just combine anything with a time turner! And they're easy to get, they apparently just hand them out to good students.
that would have made an excellent ending actually, the wizards collectively realizing how dumb it is to keep their entire way of life secret for no adequate reason and hiring a sharpshooter to snipe voldemort from the next continent over.
even if he is a bad enough dude to stop a bullet that he had no idea was coming, i'm fairly certain he'd be distracted enough by that to be taken down by someone else. EVEN IF he was awesome enough to instantly recover from that, i'm pretty sure most of his higher-ups aren't up to pulling that kind of a stunt. how would ol' voldy feel if all his trusted death eaters had one small hole in their foreheads and the back of their heads were missing?
and after the war is over? how can the wizards possibly justify letting the muggles suffer like they are? all the starvation going on? do you guys have a drumstick? well that drumstick is now large enough to feed the entire country. Dying of AIDs? you don't have aids, what are you on about? can't find some terrorists? *glances at crystal ball* they are uh, over there-ish. no not there, a little more to the left.
so on, and so on.
Actually this is brought up once, in the first book i believe. harry asks hagrid why the wizards live in secret, to which hagrid replies
"well everyone would want magic to solve all their problems!"
thing is my fat friend, magic CAN solve all their problems, with quite little difficulty in fact.
even if he is a bad enough dude to stop a bullet that he had no idea was coming, i'm fairly certain he'd be distracted enough by that to be taken down by someone else. EVEN IF he was awesome enough to instantly recover from that, i'm pretty sure most of his higher-ups aren't up to pulling that kind of a stunt. how would ol' voldy feel if all his trusted death eaters had one small hole in their foreheads and the back of their heads were missing?
and after the war is over? how can the wizards possibly justify letting the muggles suffer like they are? all the starvation going on? do you guys have a drumstick? well that drumstick is now large enough to feed the entire country. Dying of AIDs? you don't have aids, what are you on about? can't find some terrorists? *glances at crystal ball* they are uh, over there-ish. no not there, a little more to the left.
so on, and so on.
Actually this is brought up once, in the first book i believe. harry asks hagrid why the wizards live in secret, to which hagrid replies
"well everyone would want magic to solve all their problems!"
thing is my fat friend, magic CAN solve all their problems, with quite little difficulty in fact.
The non-verbal function is more about other wizards not knowing what spell you're casting, rather than increasing the speed of casting (hence why top wizards know Occlumency, to know what their opponent is thinking). You'd still have to think the words in your head, and that will take at least half a second to do, which is more than enough time for a high-speed hello by good old atomic element 82. Voldi might be able to take a stab at what's coming, but there's no way he'd be able to get up an adequate defense in time, especially since he's not really that much of an "extra-curricular studies" kind of guy. Hell, he wasn't even able to protect himself from all magical threats, the things he would logically face, so mechanical implements wouldn't have even come up on his "to do" list of protection spells (if they even exist).Forlong said:
So in short, he'd die against a gun, though it honestly doesn't matter seeing as Thomas "Voldemort" Marvolo Riddle is already KIA. There's no point in shooting a dead horse.
How does Harry's exceptional love for his friends help vanquish Voldemort than if he had an entirely functional relationship with his companions? Neville killed the final Horcrux and he had an impersonal relationship with Harry.SnakeoilSage said:
Harry survived as a baby because his mother acted as a human shield... magically. Somehow this Killing Curse killed both her AND reversed it back on Voldemort to kill him, and the final part of his Horcrux go into Harry. Actually, this sacrifice-spell makes the killing-curse a hugely impractical mode of killing. Of all the ways you could kill someone, be it with a spear, crossbow, gun, flamethrower, chainsaw... what could they possibly do to make such an attack kill themselves but ALSO kill the dealer? Short of a suicide-bomber's vest which kills everyone within a 20 meter radius.
And killing curse is apparently the only spell which is SPECIFICALLY designed to kill. The question shouldn't be why don't they shoot Voldemort but rather why doesn't Voldemort use a gun himself!?!? Guns WITH magic would be a HIGHLY effective combination. Like combining laser guidance systems with high-explosive air-dropped bombs, to give the Laser Guided Bomb that can deliver several tons of high explosives right through a ventilation shaft... or some "Force" guide a proton torpedo down a thermal exhaust port:
All the magic in Harry Potter just seems so arbitrary and open to abuse it's meaningless even within a work of fiction. It's not like a new set of rules, it's rules change all the time.
And the Elder Wand thing. That's not love, that's providence. Or in this case where we know it is a book, plot contrivance. JK Rowling conveniently made the random events of wands exchanging hands means the Elder Wand was Harry's and then introduce the element of obedience in wands so refuse to cast a Killing Curse on the owner... even though it did so minutes earlier, where Harry was again saved by convenience beyond his plan or will, did the wand "know" that?
This has nothing to do with love and compassion. This has to do with Harry stealing Draco's wand after he betrayed Dumbledor and Voldemort not understanding the rules of magic that Rowling is clearly making up as she goes along. So larceny on top of betrayal depending on ignorance...
PS: first you say Voldemort is motivated to kill Harry by hatred. Then suddenly you say he is motivated by practicality, that he thinks he must do it to survive. Which is it? Is it both? It's not unreasonable to hate someone that is going to cost you your life, even if a delusional opinion that makes him insane, not evil. Insane to kill a baby at a time when it clearly posed no threat nor ability to even indicate threat.