What exactly was his endgame?

>>78951136
Win before someone figured out that the pocketwatch in book 3 could be used for more important stuff than letting a student take more credit hours.

Anonymous 2017-01-31 01:18:09 Post No.78951408
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-01-31 01:18:09 Post No.78951408 [Report]

>>78951387
Why the fuck did Mcgonagoogle give hermione it in her first year

Anonymous 2017-01-31 01:18:14 Post No.78951413
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-01-31 01:18:14 Post No.78951413 [Report]

DULLEST

Anonymous 2017-01-31 01:20:51 Post No.78951484
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-01-31 01:20:51 Post No.78951484 [Report]

>>78951408
She gave her in year 3 and Dumbledore had to ask special license from the Ministry. Hermione being Hermione is smart enough to know that you don't fuck with things in the past unless you want everything to get borked.

Anonymous 2017-01-31 01:26:48 Post No.78951655
[Report] Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2017-01-31 01:26:48 Post No.78951655 [Report]

File: IMG_2192.jpg (23KB, 386x258px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 386x258px

AYO
(Spends years accomplishing nothing while voldemort regains strength)
AYO HOL UP
(Gives 11 year old boy the ability to become invisible)
HOL UP
(Lets death eaters teach classes)
ARE YOU SAYIN
(Lets watch that can reverse time and stop horrible events go to a 13 year old so she can take more classes)
SO YOU SAYIN
(Spends a year trying to confirm that voldemort used hoarcruxes instead of destroying one of the hoarcruxes)
WE
(Ignores the fact that a student is trying to kill him)
WUZ
(Lets a student take the most powerful wand in the world from him to give to voldemort)
WISE AN SHIT?

Anonymous 2017-01-31 01:29:45 Post No.78951735
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-01-31 01:29:45 Post No.78951735 [Report]

>>78951655
>(Ignores the fact that a student is trying to kill him)

He didn't ignore it, he put a plan in place from the very start for Snape to do it instead because he didn't want Draco to get all fucked up by killing.

Anonymous 2017-01-31 01:30:19 Post No.78951753
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-01-31 01:30:19 Post No.78951753 [Report]

>>78951655
>(Gives 11 year old boy the ability to become invisible)
I just remembered that they made Harry's invisibility cloak from the first movie (from his dad and shown to be pretty common) be some holy weapon created by Death itself in the last two.
Man this franchise is weird

Anonymous 2017-01-31 01:30:43 Post No.78951762
[Report] Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2017-01-31 01:30:43 Post No.78951762 [Report]

File: 1479274885480.jpg (2MB, 1622x2886px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1622x2886px

Surely it wasn't being part of 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 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.