Amph Gaming Diagon Alley: The Official Harry Potter Thread/Hogwarts Legacy

Stupid thing was having problems posting.

 

Why? Harry snapping the Elder Wand fits with his character and mirrors the way he got the Philosopher’s Stone. Plus, he doesn’t need the Elder Wand anyway. He beat an acknowledged master of the Dark Arts in single combat.

 

I was ok with breaking the wand. I still wish he had done it after repairing his though.

 

Yeah, the movie makes more sense than the book in that way. All someone would have to do is disarm Harry, and voila! They would be master of the Elder Wand.

The movie corrected that potential problem.

 

The problem is, Harry didn't fix his own wand.

 

It just didn't happen on-screen.

 

Cool list of the Death Eaters, with some pictures of ones not previously seen like Regulus:

https://www.pottermore.com/features/a-guide-to-lord-voldemorts-death-eaters

 

I'd like to get some more info on the Founders.

 

I now have the very fun image of Hagrid fighting Death Eaters with his bare hands.

 

There's supposedly going to be a teaser for Fantastic Beasts 2 later today.

 

Title and cast photo revealed.

http://comicbook.com/movies/2017/11/16/fantastic-beasts-2-title-and-first-look-cast-photo-revealed/

 

.

 

.

 

..

 

Everyone saw the news that next film is titled "The Crimes of Grindelwald," and the new characters joining, right?







Also, Pottermore has this article on immortality. It kind of makes me wonder why JK Rowling didn't just make Voldemort the first Vampire in centuries, or something like that. They both kill to make themselves immortal. Vampires through blood, Voldemort through the making of horcruxes via murder.

I guess Voldemort would be like if a Vampire only had to drink one person's blood to be immortal forever and never need blood again, but Voldemort decided to do it a few more times to be sure. Voldemort didn't need to keep killing people to simply stay alive, which I guess makes Voldemort more evil since he does keep killing (and beyond just horcruxes), but JK Rowling could have twisted it. I'm still surprised she featured Werewolfs, but only made one or two offhand mentions of Vampires, and they're never featured, so her vampires might not even be the traditional kind.

https://www.pottermore.com/features/pottermore-guide-to-immortality

 

What's interesting about that picture is that all of the characters, except for Dumbledore and Grindelwald, are paired up: Leta Lestrange is with Newt's brother; Newt with Tina; Jacob with Queenie; and Credence with that new character.

Given what we know of Dumbledore and Grindelwald's past "friendship," that could easily be a major bone of contention for at least this film. Maybe Newt uncovers the fact that Grindelwald knew Dumbledore, and that Dumbledore is reluctant to help Newt, at least initially? This Albus Dumbledore may not be as completely confident and shrewd as his older self. Maybe Newt helps him become the Dumbledore we know in the books and films.

 

Logo for the next movie:

 

Just like Batman got Jim promoted in Batman Begins, maybe Newt does the same from Dumbledore.

 

I remember that there was a Vampire as a guest at one of Slughorns parties in HBP. But he didn't have any lines.

Gesendet von meinem SM-J510FN mit Tapatalk

 

Yeah that's one of the offhand mentions I was thinking of, there might have been another either said by Snape or comparing Snape to one.

 

I believe the vampire's name was Sanguini.