So, in the first Harry Potter film, Quirrell turned out to be

Horcrux's keep him alive but barely since his body got destroyed when he tried to kill Harry. He needed a ritual thing to get his actual body back. First book was written before Rowling thought up Horcrux's so it doesn't really follow the logic of the other books. And the diary wasn't actually him but just an imprint of his 17 year old self.

>>86746382
Rowling hadn't thought of Horcruxes until book 5 or 6 to give the characters something to do, so everything before that point makes no sense
From what I understand, Voldy died but his soul escaped and was hiding in some other country (bulgaria or something i dont remember), Quirrel found it and became bonded to him somehow then Harry kills him.
The Diary I think was something totally different that had magic on it from previously so if Riddle in book 2 had won their might be 2 voldermorts around idk
Then in book 4 ratman had that voldermort baby thing that I didn't understand that turned into a bigger voldemort
Then in book 6 Rowling came up with horcruxes but I don't even understand what horcruxes do anyway so who cares lmao
D U L L E S T

>>86746501
So both Voldemort's soul and his 16-year old self would be present at that moment he would return as his former self? Does that mean there would be two Voldemorts had he succeeded by murdering Ginny?

When Voldemort tried to kill Harry, his mom had created a magical shield around him so powerful that Voldemort essentially destroyed his own body, but he still existed in a ghostlike form, and hid out in Albania for a while.

Eventually he came upon Quirrell and latched onto him, but he was forced to go back to Albania when Harry confronted Quirrell.

The Tom Riddle shown from the diary wasn't the main portion of his identity that remained, but he showed up as Tom Riddle because it was still a portion of his soul so it had some autonomy of its own.

Eventually Wormtail came back to Voldemort to help him get some kind of corporeal form back, which was the shriveled little baby thing that appeared in Goblet of Fire.

>>86746713
The diary was more of Lucius Malfoy's plot than Voldemort's. Malfoy intended to get rid of the muggle borns in the school through reopening the chamber of secrets and releasing the basilisk. The horcruxes aren't really a way for Voldemort to rejoin the physical world, they're more like objects that influence the people around them to his own ends.

>>86746951
Ah so had Tom Riddle become his full self again with Ginny dead, both he and Voldemort would be separate entities?

File: 1503425836209.jpg (548KB, 1616x2896px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1616x2896px

The real paradox would be the success of one the dullest franchise 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.

File: 1479852904059.jpg (1MB, 1588x2862px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1588x2862px

>>86746382
Just as Quirrel is, as described, Voldemort's buttbuddy, so too is the audience fucked in the ass when they are subjected to the dullest franchise 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.

>>86747546

I'm assuming so, the portion of Voldemort's soul was able to absorb the life force of the person reading the diary (the more the person poured into it, the more powerful he became) so I think if the diary weren't destroyed and he became powerful enough he would have been able to take a physical form.

I'm not sure how that would affect the other Voldemort that still didn't have a physical form, though. Maybe he would have just merged with the new Tom Riddle and saved himself some time, or used the new Tom Riddle to help the "original" Voldemort get his body back.

>>86746501
>And the diary wasn't actually him but just an imprint of his 17 year old self
The diary was also an Horcrux, dicklet

Script episode 7 got?

Did anyone see that Harry Potter play? Is the book worth reading when it comes out?