@@MediaRetrospective-sb2ptMovie also screws up Crouch the same way it screws up Voldemort. Both are meant to be the stone-cold calculating type of evil and the film makes them both raving lunatics.
@@庫倫亞利克I feel like they messed up Peter Pettigrew hard as well. In the books he stood out from the rest of the Death Eaters due to his sympathetic and human qualities (not saying he wasn't really bad, but still). In the movie they cut out all of it and made him into a typical "pure evil" villain (with his very iconic death from the book being cut out as well).
Exactly! Replace "lazily" With "casually slithered" and it's pretty to easy to see what J.K. was imagining. The terrifying aura of his power should be felt like: You are trapped in a 12x12x12 box naked With a 60ft Anaconda movie Voldemort was very much like an acTOR! and not so much like an Animal.
The biggest gripe i had was how Voldemort died. He was supposed to die as a normal person. That was the entire point of his death in the books but for some reason they made his death a magical event which it shouldn't have been
Yeah definitely. The whole point in the books was that he died an ordinary death and everyone could see the body so there'd be no speculation about what happened to him, unlike the first time.
This is precisely the video point. His "ordinary human body death" of the books work _because_ he was portrayed as inhuman throughout the series to show how unremarkable he ultimately was. In the films, he was already portrayed so mundane, that they needed to remind us / convey his superior magical skill with an equally magical death or there would've been nothing to set him apart from anyone else... only they botched that by using it for Bellatrix, too
They didn't show voldemort and his family's backstory because they were too focused on some weird ass romance scene that wasn't even in the books It's so bizarre
Rewatched the 6th movie yesterday and this aspect made me LIVID. So much of Voldemort's lore is revealed and all they gave us were 2 of his flashbacks, and even then they cut out some things in the memory at the orphanage. The woman only tells Dumbledore that there've been "incidents with the other children, nasty things", but she never talks about the kids in the cave, and she never tells him about the rabbit hanging from the rafters. It really gives you a different perspective of him, like he's so evil when he's young but then you see him again in Slughorn's memory and he's acting relatively normal... It would have been so chilling if only the focus had been on Voldemort and not the weirdy forced romances.
I mean we know he was an orphan and was abandoned, also the romance wasn't that bad, it wasn't that much that it took away or stole time from possibly going more in depth about his backstory really.
I always thought his delivery of one particular line in that film was cold, yet kind of funny since it kept up the theme of Voldy being dramatic in the films… “Lord Voldemort will return… VERY. MUCH. ALIVE.”
@@HappyCatholicDanethe difference with Joker is that he's completely insane and his laughs are the manifestation of his insanity and that makes him scary. When Voldemort laughs, it's more because he thinks he's invincible and therefore arrogant, which makes him less threatening and makes him look more comical.
Voldemort’s movements should have born more like the Nazgûl from the Lord of the Rings; deliberate, menacing, and smooth to the point they seem to be almost ghostly
Book: "Voldemort said lazily" Movie: Voldemort angrily shouting as he violently rips off his Death Eaters' masks. See also... Book: "Dumbledore asked calmly" Movie: Dumbledore angrily shouting as he manhandles Harry
@@timothyvanhoeck233 agreed. However, I think it is a much wider problem than just HP. There's some kind of belief or value that truth and meaning only comes from anger, or something like that. Thus, the conclusion that people make is that to be believable you must be angry; anything else is just fake and manipulative. And, supposedly, the "best" form of anger is hate. I think it just makes everything hollow and meaningless. I was also disappointed in the final battle. It was so poignant and meaningful in the book. I don't know why the movie makers believe that somehow making something flashy and animated makes something better. I thought it was a huge fundamental mistake to have the final battle with no one watching. It was just such an anticlimactic and disappointing contradiction and invalidation of what the higher level battle was across all the books. "It doesn't matter whether it means anything so long as it looks good!" :-( Thanks for the analysis! :-)
@@timothyvanhoeck233It's just different media how things are more easily translated. Also, people have a shorter attention span for watching movies than when reading books
About his physicality, Voldemort would NEVER stoop to the level of muggle fighting, he’s find it demeaning of his status. You’re absolutely right. The fighting scene in deathly hallows is ridiculous.
Honestly it not that bad. Him being so physically expressive really conveys his passion and desire to achieve his goals. When he started punching harry it really showed the hatred and disgust he had for Harry. He was pushed to his limits so badly he thought "fuck it I'm beating the shit out of this kid". That's how personal it is.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt I never stopped laughing at the idea of Voldemort straight up bitch slapping a teenage kid in the middle of a battle to the death
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt The scene in the last movie is when it actually makes most sense for him to stoop to using his physicality though. At that point in both the book and the movie, he's already lost thematically. The wand isn't working for him. Harry hasn't died. In the book, it's the only time he's visibly frightened of Harry, and the only time Harry actually finds himself confidently explaining something TO Voldermort, and speaking down to him, calling him Tom. It's a total reversal of the power dynamic that was present in every previous encounter they had. They could probably have done more with it, and had Harry taunting him for being reducing to fighting like a Muggle. But the idea is in keeping with the loss of power and control that he undergoes once Harry returns.
So fun fact; when I first read GOF, I missed Voldemort’s initial physical description so I ended up imagining him looking like an older Tom Riddle from COS, and somehow I found that to be more scary and threatening than his actual appearance, the handsome exterior apposed to the monster that lay beneath.
I always found it interesting to see Voldemort's past as a handsome, charismatic young man compared to the psychotic monster he becomes. It'd be an interesting alternate story to see how things would have been different had he continued on the path.
He would have still been powerful, he pretended he wants to ( ironically) teach Defence against the Dark Arts , He could have achieved bad lot at Hogwarts as a Professor or even Head Master .
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2ptremember the monster was always there. As soon as he figured out he had powers, he used them to bully the other orphans, he even made a rabbit hang itself from the rafters. Plus I think he saw his transformation as a symbol of how more powerful he becomes, and it made him look different from other people, and more importantly his father whom he despised
The most scary appearance of Voldemort IMO was when he came back at Hogwarts to discuss the DADA job with Dumbledore in the books. I imagine he looked like that in the first wizarding war hairless.
If Voldemort didn't start a death cult and just did the tried and true method of becoming a politician or influential figure and then he might've actually got his dream world of no muggle borns
One of the things that bugged me, In the book Voldemort's death was incredible ordinary. He just flopped over onto the ground like a Muggle who's heart had just stopped beating. In the movie his death was exactly the opposite. It even seemed that Voldemort saw what was happening and understood that he was dying. Voldemort despised the ordinary. He would have despised his book death not only because it was his death, but also because it was so ordinary. He may have despised his movie death, but it would have pleased him that at least it was a way no other wizard had passed away. Think of the stories they would tell about it! He deserved a boring, ordinary death.
Completely agree! Also I think the way he died in the books was important for the other characters to 1. Know he was dead for sure this time and 2. See he died as an ordinary man (as you said).
Well jk really didn't remember the bit where he has little less than the meanest ghost in substantial essence which the movie remembers. Y'know there's nothing left for voldemort to exist after his body was put under strain of a wand that wouldn't listen an attacking wizard and owner of the wand magic backlash is no joke especially broken black magic.
Also, he had to leave a body behind so people could see him and not be afraid anymore. If he just vanished or turned to ash, people could just say he fled and escaped and keep his legend alive. Voldemort had to die like his most mundane victims, to strip him of that insidious aura of mysticism and menace he had cultivated.
Voldemort, anyway, didn't die ordinarily, technically speaking. Did you forget he split his soul into 7 pieces and hid them in 7 objects called Horocruxes? The seventh and final Horocruxes was the serpent Nagini. By mistake, an eighth Horocruxes were created that were not meant to be created. (Harry Potter). When the last Horocruxes the 7 th was destroyed (Nagini The serpent). He turned into small dust particles (ashes). Peter Pettigrew betrayed his friend James Potter, and he also betrayed Sirius Black. He revealed to Voldy where the Pottermore house stood. James didn't have his wand that night so he died. Voldy was going to kill baby Harry Potter that night with the killing curse spell; Ada Cadaver! But James Potter's wife (born: Evans) Lily loved her son like a mother so much that she cried; No! Not my Harry. And sacrificed her own life between Voldy's wand and Harry's bed. Through a love spell. Harry survived with a Scar on his forehead. Inside this scar a tiny bit of Voldy's soul attached itself. And thus Harry could hear and communicate with snakes. And everyone should know to have realized it by now, that film directors do not slavishly follow the books.
I feel like Ralph Fiennes gets slept on by a lot of Potter fans because of his portrayal of Voldemort. Had he brought the energy of Ramses from Prince of Egypt or Amon Goeth from Schindler’s List, then Voldemort’s film portrayal I think would have been fantastic
Ralph Fiennes is a great actor, I think it's just the vision either him or the director had for Voldemort which let them down, rather than his own skill.
Another problem with movie Voldemort that I realized in my last reading is he never comes across as a leader who formed the Deatheaters and kept them in line. Instead he comes across as someone who was appointed leader through committee.
@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Bullies in real life attract other bullies through threats, violence, and mockery. They cling to the bigger bully for protection from him, and the power they can inherit from him.
@@NeloBladeOfRanni You seems to forget the silver shield, the army of inferi, defenses around his horcruxes, fire snake spell, appearing in silence during combat (no other dark wizard have done that), the lightning spell he used to break the shield of Hogwarts, Wormtale's cursed silverhand that killed him for disloyalty, the cursed DADA job, the curse on Dumbledore's hand that killed him the end.
@@headstrongbachelor3152All is cool, but the dada curse is so strange: how can you possibly curse a job, something that's just a concept and don't have physical form. And if he could do that (or Rowling possibly just came up with it and didn't think of consequences) why didn't he use it more often and on more valuable concepts, like curse orden of Phenix or something
I agree with you. Lord Voldemort was stoic to the point everything around him seemed like a waste of his time in the books. I heard in the behind the scenes of the films, Ralph Fiennes was told to tone his acting of Lord Voldemort down as his screen play scared to many of the children so much they cried uncontrolibly. I so wish we got that version that Ralph originally wanted to do. He wanted to keep true to the books however the directors said it was too scary 🙄 Great video!
Thanks very much! I've been hearing some conflicting information about what Ralph wanted vs what the director wanted but I guess whoever's fault it was ultimately it's definitely a shame.
The young voldemort in the Half Blood Prince movie was a actually a quite better depiction of voldemort in the books. Very calm, collected and manipulative while bein very confident. Idk 🤷🏻♂️
I agree, I think out of all the Voldemort portrayals he got it the most correct, which makes it even worse that they cut so many of the scenes where we would have found out about his lore, how he got Marvolo's ring and his visit to Little Hangleton etc. Half-Blood Prince could have been the best movie by far if we'd gotten all that, but all Yates seemed to care about was the cringey romances. Ugh.
I think a lot of the problems with Voldemort in the films stem from his initial re-reveal in GoF. Mike Newell, who directed GoF not only never read the books, he had an active contempt for them. He only did it for the money. This is why he got so many scenes and characters so blatantly wrong. But with all of the strange character choices made in that film, going forward, the next director, David Yates was essentially forced to keep Voldemort as bizarre as he was in GoF.
Wow I didn't know that about the director, but I guess it isn't too surprising. If I ever have a book series adapted I would definitely insist on a director who understood the source material.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt well, they had two of them to start. Chris Columbus directed the first two films and was very faithful to the books (except for maybe his team’s Voldemort design). And then came Alfonso Cuaron who had a darker more tonally diverse take on PoA than Columbus had, but he also ended up leaving. Cuaron treats everything he does as a passion project and as a result, even though he was not a good overall fit for a Harry Potter movie, he did everything in his power to make it a great film. And Columbus had a history of directing similar family-friendly films in the past, loved working with kids, and seemed to be a huge fan of the series, anyway. Newell had neither of these skillsets.
WB really screwed up the films after the first few. They're lucky so many fans were desperate to see Harry Potter in the theaters. I doubt they'd have that kind of success today. Yates was probably the worst thing to happen to the franchise. Palpatine was more terrifying than film Voldemort.
In all honesty, I think Ralph Fienes Voldy had some definite moments. Rowling sort of made him comically evil. The best villains are ones we can relate to on some level. We can see their reasoning though we would make different choices. Truthfully, it's only because of the extended lore that Palpatine is as terrifying as he is. A cultivated, astronomically narcissistic sociopath master manipulator able to tap into a limitless font of power. Voldemort just comes across as a self loathing archetype of evil manifest. Voldemort was never the reason I liked the books.
@@tomfoolery5680 Well, for my own opinion, Book Voldemort was frightening up until Book 7 which was totally rushed/blundered. People were acting out of character, including Voldemort, Lore was retconned, and new things were freshly invented just to give Harry the W. It wasn't the same Voldemort.
@@stellviahohenheim Why do you compare a fictional character with someone real? lol. Anyway, Voldemort would kill Epstein simply by pointing a stick at him.
"Voldemort in the books isn't just a human villain.." Its kinda ironic. In the books, when he died, he died like any normal person would as well, "..Tom Riddle hit the floor with a mundane finality, his body feeble and shrunken, the white hands empty, the snakelike face vacant and unknowing.." In the movies, where his characterisation is much more human, he dies like some eldritch entity, going up in ashes 😂
Ralph finnes is a great actor, but i also feel this. Voldemort in the movies seemed like someone with anger problems. In the books he is rarely shown with explosing anger. The only times you see him geniunly angry is during his interactions with dumbledore or harry, where he cant dominate the situation like he does with others. In the other parts of the books when interacting with others, he is shown as cold, and inconsiderate unless the person is of special use to him. Then he can be charming.
I also found his outbursts of anger in book 7 after he finds out that Harry knows about Horcruxes to be especially scary. We haven't seen Voldemort lose control and needlessly kill a bunch of people before so when we do its scary. The movie was trying to hint at that, but it was usual par-for-the-course Voldemort shenanigans
I always imagined Voldemorts physical actions to be somewhat similar to Anthony Hopkins portrayal of Hannibal in silence of the lambs where he's still in the prison. Very cold, calm and collected, with the underlying sinister air of someone extremely dangerous.
3:08 - At this point in the story, Voldemort _knows_ that the Elder Wand has failed to kill Harry before, and is getting frustrated as it continues to fail him now. So I actually quite like the idea of him completely losing control to the point where he almost forgoes magic entirely and just resorts to kicking and hitting Harry instead. If this was the first or _only_ time we see Voldemort acting like this, it could have been genuinely effective, but the moment is weakened and made redundant by the other examples.
Yeah I see where you're coming from, you could make an argument that a desperate and cornered Voldemort would lash out knowing the end is near. But as you said, I think in conjunction with everything else it still isn't completely true to his character.
Growing up I had a hard time dealing when the movie and the book diverged. Then I decided to consider the book and the movie as entirely independent stories. No matter how close they are, what happens in the book has nothing to do with what happens in the movie.
@@nerdyworld938 I am very much looking forward to seeing what they’ll be putting out. Especially when given the extra screen time by doing in episodic format. ❤️❤️
@@kdubs83 yeah I just hope that they don’t do 45 minute episodes for 8 episodes. Like I hope the first season is 13 episodes but they could also be like the books to where the first book was 300 pages, and over time they kept on getting bigger. So hopefully the same thing will happen for the show to where we’ll go from 8 episode seasons to 13 episode seasons that are about 45 minutes
I think you are right, even the fact that he chose to be resurrected with what looked like a frail, repulsive form tells us he gives no value to his own body, he doesn't need muscles to do anything since he can just use magic. His body only exists to carry a wand.
Point 1 reminds me of Gaara during the Chinin Exams in Naruto. When he has his fight with Rock Lee. Early on, Lee is throwing punches and kicks at Gaara, and Gaara just controls his sand to block it without actually moving himself. The unchanging facial expression and being unmovable makes them seem insurmountable as an opponent.
It's even worse - the sand is completely automatic, so literally all Gaara had to do in all his fight is just stand. That's why he's so shocked whe Lee lands a hit - that's the first hit he ever took in his life.
There were so many things wrong with the movies, main plots and things being ruined by the movies. What really got to me was the fact that all the death eaters and order of the phoenix could fly when in the books only voldemort was known to be able to actually fly and it terrified the order in the deathly hallows.
Shouldn’t that be considered a good addition though? If random kids from Hogwarts can fly while playing quidditch then surely death eaters or the order not being able to fly makes no sense.
Voldemort can fly unaided, almost every witch and wizard can fly with brooms, magicked motorcycles, etc. No member of the rescue party was flying like Peter Pan.
@@teeboz6237 For me it's more about how flying unaided in the books is considered a big deal, which almost everyone does in the movies (if they used brooms or something else I wouldn't have minded).
Yeah. That was the true ending. The movie was a false ending. Poor delivery really. He was supposed to just drop dead, not dissappear slowly into a million pieces.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Also, could redo the Drako hug by having Voldemort patting him on the head in an eerie and stilted manner, like someone who hates being touched and doesn’t know how to do even the most minimal sign of caring?
Wow. This hit the nail on the head of how big of a difference there is between book Voldemort and film Voldemort. The issue really is that it seems he was written in the films to be semi-comedic, it’s to the point that you can literally find compiliation videos of him “being dramatic” or the weird sounds/motions he makes. This stops him from being scary. I don’t blame Ralph Fiennes for this, he actually is a talented actor, this one’s on the writing. That being said, I would argue that Goblet of Fire was the closest to book Voldemort of all the Ralph Fiennes era of Voldemort (as that one had less of the dramatic stuff and more of what he is famed for in the books)… though if you asked me which film did Voldemort the best… I’d argue it was The Philosopher’s Stone, as he was legitimately scary in that film. Like a user here said, in the books Voldemort is comparable to Satan, but in the films he’s more like a stereotypical and dramatic bully. Which isn’t bad if you only look at Harry Potter as a film series, the problem is how much it misses the point of his character in the source material. Great video.
Thank you! Totally agree with you, and I lie the blame mostly at the foot of the director and writers. I do feel Goblet of Fire was the best showing of Voldemort in the movies, yet still not great, and he got steadily worse after that.
I was at first very pleased that Ralph Fiennes was going to portray Voldemort. But I felt something was off and I couldn’t put my finger on what it was. And I was disappointed that I preferred the first actor to portray him. Now i understand why. I still love Ralph Fiennes. Not sure why he portrayed him the way he did because he had the ability to do it right.
I read another comment here saying that apparently he was told to dial his performance back a bit because it scared children on the set, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was the reason.
The physicality of voldemort in GoF is actually not irritating to me. He finally got his body back, of course he’d be testing it out and getting comfortable in his new digs. It’s everything after that’s irritating because it’s no longer justifiable in my eyes. I’m guessing the physicality is for the visual on screen. Good video though, really.
This was a detail that stood out in the fanfic "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" - that indifference, rather than hate, could power the Killing Curse better. It always seemed to me that _that_ was how Voldemort should be tossing off AKs left and right - not that he was filled with hate, but that he considered himself so far above everyone that they, and their existence, meant nothing to him, so killing them was nothing more than sweeping vermin out of his way.
From the passages in the books his movement and demeanor should be more like Darth Vader. Even in saber duels Vader doesn’t exert himself. Essentially Voldemort is a mob boss who doesn’t have to shout, yell, or make unnecessary movements. His magic should also be an extension of himself instead of something he wields. It’s like he’s trying to be magical in the films instead of being magical. Because he is a master with it his use should be smooth and minimal even with heavy spells. He should have been more like Snape was in the films.
I think a good parallel that came to mind while watching your video is Vecna from Stranger Things. Obviously him and Voldemort have a lot of differences, but they both share dark and powerful mastery of supernatural powers. What makes Vecna so intimidating in the show is exactly what you pointed out was missing from the movie’s Voldemort: he’s always slow, emotionless, and always behaves in a manner that tells us he is in complete control of the situation and his powers (unlike Elevan).
JK Rowling said that without magic, Voldemort would be a pitiful, pathetic thing. Warped body, face and mind, physically feeble, distorted high voice etc.
@@drew1342 even if JK Rowling didn't say that, it's still true, dude has the body of a 90 year old who's clearly on his deathbed, and he's destroyed his face to a degree he doesn't even look human. And while the movies didn't convey this well, in the books, voldy is said to have a rather high (though icy) voice), which is hilarious for a man.
Ralph Fiennes said when he laughed as Voldemort he was trying to avoid having it sound like a cliche evil laugh, but the result ended up being way funnier.
I couldn’t express my sheer anger and disappointment that the final scene was Voldemort slapping and kicking Harry, at the expense of Minerva, Kingsley and Horace all fighting him at once before Harry revealed himself and they had their final standoff. They robbed Horace of an important character moment. Pompous and scared, but he stepped up and fought Voldemort directly to protect the students and avenge Lily.
i grew up the movies and absolutely love them but after reading the books it’s so disappointing to see how many great things were changed like Voldemort, Ron and Hermiones relationship, Hermiones character itself. They even got Fantastic Beasts wrong which is a perfect example of what you said in the beginning. “They wouldn’t do well today.”
I haven't watched the new fantastic beasts but I wasn't really a fan of the clips I saw from them. I feel like after the first 7 books a lot of the adaptations and sequels were disappointing.
I feel as tho that the movies made him more of a comedic villain rather than the embodiment of cruelty and corruption. Voldemort isn’t just a bad guy villain, he’s literally the personality of all the worst qualities of humanity and society. I wish they made him more cold and less human.
Very true. Voldemort should almost be void of emotion rather than be beholden to the intense "bad" ones like anger. Everything should present itself essentially as irrelevant to him unless it is directly connected to his goal.
Never read the books but book-Voldemort sounds interesting Never really loved movie Voldemort but the Graveyard scene always stuck with me. He had everything taken from him by a m*dblood and her baby, who is now considered on his level. Spent 13 year to come back and he has had it, he was unhinged and I loved it. “I want you to look at me when I kill you!!” But being so different form what you liked in the book, disappointment in characterization this different makes sense
Finally someone gets it. If the movies were accurate the books people would understand why Voldemort is the most powerful dark wizard of all time. They should have kept the actor from the first movie...
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt My little sister told me she had a nightmare of him. I would enjoy if they made a movie or trilogy on the first wizarding war, so we could see Voldemort in his prime. Probably to scary for the kids...
I liked Voldemort in Goblet. His manerisms, as if he is high on every emotion because he is back. His mockery to Harry. Also the spanish VA made it as if he was restraining himself of talking too high or too fast because he is feeling everything at that second and has to restrain himself
Hey man thanks a lot that's really appreciated. I actually just started the channel a couple of weeks ago so it's great to hear you're enjoying it. If you have any requests for topics definitely let me know as well!
I do agree with you in most of these points. But to be fair, JK Rowling did put a lot of emphasis on Voldemort being "just human" when he eventually dies.I think in the movies they try to show him as a human but with otherworldly aspects.
If they were trying to depict him as a human, they blew it when he magically disintegrated into nothing. The whole point was that despite him thinking he was a godlike figure, he was still a mortal.
I see both sides with the physicality. While I like both versions, I assume that they made him more physical in the films to show his insecurity. Voldemort probably wants to show his power, as he was depowered for so long--plus his moving around and emotional behavior is probably a movie thing, with concern that his lazy behavior would make the audience bored.
Exactly at the point. But modern movies are rarely good in depicting grandiose evil and intelligence. Also, the most stupid thing they have done in the movies is that all wizard fight with Prioi Incantatem...This was just one time event in the GoF. That's that. Because of that, Harry appears as if he is as strong as Vildemort who in fact can defeat a whole army of Aurors just by himself...The whole point of the books is that Harry triumphs not by power, nor talent but by the love of his parents and friends. It is Voldemort's view that what wins at the end is power, talent, and raw might. Priori incantatem made it as if Harry was as powerful as Voldemort which not only is not the case but it defeats the whole point of the book series and the whole point of Harry. The movies were directed by little men, who neither had respect for the books, nor had the deeply religious, wise view that Rawling had
They don't all use that spell though, there is a variety they use. I mean no Harry appears strong but obviously not as strong as Voldemort. Yess and in the movies he only wins with help from his parents and friends, I mean at the end Neville destroyed the last horcrux which was crucial to Harry beating Voldemort. Not really he never seemed as powerful as Voldemort and only won once Voldemort was severely weakened, it doesn't defeat the point of the book series or Harry it follows it pretty well in fact. I mean....he still made some pretty good movie adaptations to be fair.
What I liked especially in the books was his death. He wanted to be special and unique and did almost anything to be so. Yet when it came to an end, he died just like any other person would. No scream, no special magical effects, he just fell down where he stood, proving that he was just like anyone else. Meanwhile the movies failed to see that point and instead made him special by having him flake away.
To your point about Voldemort relying on magic over his physicality and humanity, this is specifically contrasted in book 7 by Harry, who digs Dobby's grave by hand. And whilst doing this Harry is able to block out Voldemort's thoughts and feelings. It's a specific thing that makes Harry and Voldemort different from each other. One values his mundane humanity, one tries to get rid of it.
Wow this is such a good catch and I completely missed this. Thanks so much for sharing you're completely right, it's the deliberate contrast between Harry and Voldemort.
I disagree, being cold and slow works in a book but not in a movie where they also kill from a far. You can’t have Voldemort standing in a corner doing nothing all day, and he is still very flamboyant, just not physically. His plans and show boating is alway on par with his live action counterpart
I never really thought about it but you're completely right. I'm very glad that in my language's dub, they gave him a very cold voice. That helped. I remember playing the Ps1 games when i was little, and whenever voldemort was on screen I was scared shltless because the games gave him the right vibe. 90% of times you encounter him he's just a dark figure standing there, lurking in the shadows, effortlessly menacing Awesome video essay, hope this blows up dude! Got my sub!
I never read the books, and don't plan to, but how he is in the movie works for me. Fiennes did a great job with the role and while he is far from being a cold villain, having him being unhinged, almost insane, makes him threatening as well.
The only things I really diagree about are the hugging Draco scene and his voice. I think Ralph Fiennes' voice fits the character really well. And I think the hugging scene portrays Voldemort's inability to feel love really well, which is a core characteristic of his in the books. It's like he's *trying* to be a human by hugging Draco, but it comes across as really creepy because he doesn't really know how to do it. Other than that I agree with almost every point. It's funny because there's basically the "Dumbledore asked calmly" equivalent scene from Voldemort in the series. In the first chapter of Deathly Hallows, at Malfoy Manor, the passage goes as follows: _“Wormtail,” said Voldemort, with no change in his _*_quiet, thoughtful tone,_*_ and without removing his eyes from the revolving body above, “have I not spoken to you about keeping our prisoner quiet?”_ Meanwhile, in the movie Voldemort SHOUTS that line to Wormtail. I think that scene demonstrates the difference between book/movie Voldemort really well.
Great catch with the Wormtail scene - yeah Voldemort for the most part is generally very much in control in the scenes he's in. I agree with you that Ralph's voice isn't too bad in the movies, it would have been hard to pull off a true-to-book-voice in live action to be honest, it might end up sounding a bit strange. I'm still not a huge fan of the hugging scene because I feel like Voldemort would still consider it beneath him, he doesn't really have a need to emulate human affection.
The way you described him at the beginning even makes him seem more menacing then from the films. A almost robotic/A.i. type of movement and communication. Also anything that doesn’t seem human and seems animalistic or alien makes ppl naturally uneasy since we can’t relate. Great video (from someone who hasn’t read the books)
I always thought the only time Voldy should have become animated and physical is the final confrontation with Harry. Because he keeps failing to kill Harry
These are all valid points but I wish to add to them first the scene at platform 9 and 3/4 where Harry imagine Voldemort on the platform wearing a muggle suit really a muggle suit to the man who hates muggles and wants to exterminate them it doesn't line up with his character The second is exactly how he moved throughout the movies. I agree that his movements did diminish the menace bot with each successive movie. His movements went from sure-footed, angry too angry awkward and clumsy by the final movie he looks and acts like he is mentally and physically impaired I wasn't afraid of him. I almost felt sorry for him and that was really disappointing
Great points thanks for sharing. I completely forgot about the scene where he's wearing a suit it's been a while since I've seen the movies, but that really makes no sense.
What destroyed the 8th movie for me was when Voldemort was hugging Draco and laughing 🤢🤮🤮 anytime i think about rewatching, remembering that scene instantly kills it for me
I think that they gave Yates TOO MUCH creative freedom when it came to the last few movies. The order of the Phoenix was decent but halfblood prince and deathly hallows didn't make any sense. He literally introduced or rather Failed to introduce important characters and he threw in the storylines that nobody would know anything about UNLESS they read the book. There was so much more that could have been done with the last three movies and I hope that they fix the mistakes they made when they release the max series
Voldemort looks like a normal person in the movies, he has a little bit of emotion in his speaking tone and doesn’t have that cold, evil voice, his voice might be evil enough. but instead has a lower pitched version of it in my opinion and looks too human with that normal pale face but without a nose and has no “glaring red eyes”. He looks nothing like a monster or an alien even though he is a monster and did countless crimes. He has no sharp teeth, except regular worn-down almost yellow teeth. He has regular human ears. He has no long black nails. Except human-colored ones. I think… In the books, however, Voldemort doesn’t look too human. He has not much emotion in his speaking tone and has that cold, evil voice. He still has that pale face still without a nose but with those slit nostrils. He has “glaring red eyes”. He is more monstrous-looking and a bit more alien-ish and a lot less approachable. (He still is a monster.). He has very sharp teeth and might not have any ears, except large ear holes and a couple of creases on each one or something. Idk. I think he might have long, black nails, I think… Yeah, so…
Ralph Fiennes once said that his inclination was to "underplay" the role, but then understood that "you can't underplay Voldemort. He IS evil." So he tried to make him as unpredictable as possible. He's a great actor, but this wasn't the right choice for the character.
I totally agree with you on what makes a villain truly terrifying. I also think there's a noticeable difference in how Voldemort behaves in films 4 and 5 compared to 7 and 8. In the first two, he's almost "excited" to be back. He's very active, openly angry, and aggressive. While he wants to kill Harry, he also wants to torture him. A simple boy was the reason he lost his powers and couldn't dominate the Wizarding World for 13 years. In the fourth film, he does this with spells, and in the fifth, he messes with Harry mentally by showing him things that aren’t real and making him feel alone. But after the sixth movie, he becomes much scarier, in my opinion. He starts realizing that Harry is actively searching for and destroying his Horcruxes, which makes him a direct threat. That's when Voldemort becomes more cold and calculating, with his anger and panic showing in occasional outbursts. His skin starts to shrivel, his voice becomes hoarser, and the Elder Wand slowly begins to crack and fail him. He’s desperate to avoid losing his powers again, which only fuels his hatred for Harry, and I think deep down, he was a little scared of him too. After all, Harry was the one who uncovered his secret. I think that’s why, in the final fight, Voldemort just slaps Harry and tries to strangle him. He’s completely lost, knowing this boy has survived his death curse twice and is on the verge of destroying the last Horcrux. I haven’t read all the books, so I can’t speak to the differences between them and the movies. But I do know that Ralph Fiennes portrayed Voldemort brilliantly, even if they may have gotten some aspects of his behavior wrong.
Another change that completely mischaracterizes him is, in one of the few backstory lessons they actually put in the movie. A young Tom Riddle says "I can make bad things happen to people who annoy me. I can make them hurt if I want to." He says this with feverish excitement. How ever in the movie he says "I can make bad things happen to people to people who are MEAN to me" completely changing the meaning! And delivers it so sullenly, he's sullen the whole exchange and you get the impression of an upset mistreated boy. Which completely misses the point we're supposed to see that from the start he lacked love or care of any kind for people.
Great spot! It's actually been a while since I watched the movies so I've forgotten scenes like this, but you're completely right it changes the whole meaning of the scene.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Can't fully take credit the line change was pointed out to me but the overall demeanor change struck me as I was looking for the exact line. It really is night and day book Tom is thrilled to have his abilities validated and is bragging about all he can do.
What all those points have in common is they make Voldemort less scary. I suspect they wanted to keep the age rating down to bring in a wider audience, all to make more money.
I actually think that the Goblet of Fire portrayal of Voldemort was the best of the movies. I’ve heard it that kids were so scared of Ralph Fiennes’ Voldemort in GoF that he was told to tone it down. Hence, “AAAVVVAAADDDAAA KEDDAVVRRRAAAA”.
Totally Agree with you brother.... That's why some people can't take him seriously because Raph Fiennes didn't do him justice and why some people think Grindelwald is more powerful but he isn't.... Voldemort is the most powerful and dangerous dark wizard of ALL TIME. Hopefully HBO Tv Series do him justice 💪
It always bugs me when people say Grindelwald is more powerful than Voldemort! I didn't realise it was HBO making the TV show, that gives me a lot more hope for it being good.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Yeah it bugs me too. And I'm optimistic because Jk Rowling is Involved plus the whole reason for this Tv Series is to be book accurate 😁
@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt tbf that is kinda JK Rowlings fault imo haven't read the books in a few years but from what I remember outside of very specific moments like Voldemorts duel with dunbledore he very rarely does anything outside of the unforgiveable curses
I remember reading that one scene in the first chapter of Deathly Hallows Book when the Death Eaters were startled by a shrieking noise coming from the chambers. Voldemort, with no change in his quiet & thoughtful tone and still keeping his eyes on the revolving body, told Wormtail to keep their prisoner quiet. In the Movie, he suddenly shouts at Wormtail and ordered him to keep their guest silent. This reminded me of how Dumbledore was mischaracterized in the film version of Goblet of Fire. Voldemort was weirdly misinterpreted in the films. As much as I like Ralph Fiennes, the blame is on the script and the direction.
Good scene comparison, yep he's very consistently portrayed in the books. I spoke about how they messed up with Dumbledore in my video on him as well, I actually noticed while making the video that him and Voldemort have a lot of similarities.
I LOVED the first 3 Harry Potter movies. Those are the only ones I can repeatedly watch. After that, every movie afterwards just feels worse. And the way Voldemort acts is a huge part of that. I never read the books, but even I could tell there was a stark contrast between how he sounded and acted in the first movie, and when he actually showed up with his full body. It was so jarring!! The child that portrayed him in the flashbacks was more scary! Not to mention his design was awful! I hated the human eyes, because I saw snake like eyes before, when his body was still forming, and they looked way better. And he just looked and acted too goofy.. like I COULD NOT BELIEVE that this was the same character I saw in the first movie and the adult version of the child I saw in the flashbacks.. it just wasn’t clicking together.
It doesn't help that in the movie, Ralph Fiennes is only 5' 11" while Voldemort in thw books is at least 6' or more. In some scenes he seems shorter than every death eater. It gives you the feeling that Voldemort is just an ill-tempered short man rather than the wizard equivalent of the grim reaper.
This is the difference between books and film. They can have the villain be very slow, precise, and methodical in the books and have it work fine, but in a movie, it usually just comes across a lazy or uninteresting instead of creepy. I agree that they changed a lot from the books, but I think it’s fine either way because it’s still entertaining to watch.
The young Tom Riddle and Slughorn memory from the Half Blood Prince is closer to book Voldy's cold and calculating demeanor than the entirety of Ralph Feinnes' performance.
I feel like Voldemort standing still in a movie wouldn't translate well off of the pages of a book, most people wouldn't be intimidated by a emoteless character
The same thing i noticed about Darth Vader in Star Wars vs new iterations: In Rouge one he slices up rebel soldiers, in New Hope he appears when battle seizes and calmly overlooks dead bodies.
Fantastic Video, and some great points. I had some followup thoughts. 1. I understand why he's more physical in the movies, I think it stems from the media. Even if you ask Ralph to act still and slow, I doubt he could do it convincingly. Realistically, Book Voldemort wouldn't be interesting to watch as he's more of a presence character then an interacting one. I think making him move more was the right choice, if not faithful, as it makes him more interesting for a viewer to wach. and I do like how unstable he seemed even though that wasn't a book aspect; like he'll kill anyone on the spot for no reason. 2. I think his emotiveness is 100% not book, but works in a kinda of different fashion. In the book, he's emotionally stunted like a loveless serpent, and that works. The movies make him seem inhuman by how much he fails to connect with anything, he's emotions seem wild and not approaite; like a psychopath trying to mimic them. His awkwardness, while abit too comical, does kinda work for me in a fashion of showing how alien he is now- even when he attempts to feign something lighter, it comes across as deeply unnerving and wrong. I could see Tom Riddle using his charm and rapier wit to make people laugh and fail for him, but at this point when he tries, he's just so inhumanely off- kinda like an uncanny valley. 3. I think Book Voldemort and Movie Voldemort are extremely different in such fundamental ways. Book is an almost etheral wraith-like creature, more akin to sauron as a concept of evil then a foe one can fight. Movie I think makes him seem like someone drunk on his power, dismissive of everything and his fear comes from the fact that no one knows what could set him off (and that would mean death) where I can see Book voldy being more collected and most likely wouldn't kill his own with such ease. I like them both, but I confess I have come to like movie voldy more- I know, blasphemy. While Book is *chief's kiss* in all aspects, I do like how human he is in the movies because it kinda feel to me like he's trying to present himself as this dark lord of unquestionable power, but it not working, and he's become too unstable. He feels like a real psychopath to me, where as the book he's more of a wraith and that's the point. I think the inhumanity of his human factor works for me in a strange way, how wrong he feels, and how pathetic he is when you look past his dark lord persona- which is the tragedy of his wasted life. This has been my ted talks. Great video
Thanks very much! Regarding your points: 1. I do see where you're coming from. I think a more physically active Voldemort could have still been good if they'd toned him down a bit and also still kept away from him physically fighting people. The best adult Voldemort scene is in the Goblet of Fire right after his resurrection, but I think it went downhill from there. 2. I guess this comes down to what kind of emotion do we want to evoke in the readers/audience? For me, I don't like that awkwardness because I want Voldemort to be menacing and intimidating to the audience, rather than something we pity for or laugh at. 3. Yeah completely agree with this. Thanks for sharing your view, some pretty interesting points and I definitely see where you're coming from!
Muggle-born: Only seen the films. Half-Blood: Only seen the books. Pure-Blood: Seen both the film and the movies. Muggle: Never read or seen anything related to the franchise. Squib: Only seen the spin offs.
In the books, he gives me the imagery of a snake standing tall, staring at its prey in intense silence but in the movies its like a snake on meth
Haha I like the metaphor
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2ptMovie also screws up Crouch the same way it screws up Voldemort. Both are meant to be the stone-cold calculating type of evil and the film makes them both raving lunatics.
@@庫倫亞利克I feel like they messed up Peter Pettigrew hard as well. In the books he stood out from the rest of the Death Eaters due to his sympathetic and human qualities (not saying he wasn't really bad, but still). In the movie they cut out all of it and made him into a typical "pure evil" villain (with his very iconic death from the book being cut out as well).
Exactly!
Replace "lazily" With "casually slithered" and it's pretty to easy to see what J.K. was imagining.
The terrifying aura of his power should be felt like:
You are trapped in a 12x12x12 box
naked
With a 60ft Anaconda
movie Voldemort was very much like an acTOR! and not so much like an Animal.
in books he is a King Kobra in movies he is black mamba
The biggest gripe i had was how Voldemort died.
He was supposed to die as a normal person. That was the entire point of his death in the books but for some reason they made his death a magical event which it shouldn't have been
Yeah definitely. The whole point in the books was that he died an ordinary death and everyone could see the body so there'd be no speculation about what happened to him, unlike the first time.
This was my biggest gripe too!
This is precisely the video point. His "ordinary human body death" of the books work _because_ he was portrayed as inhuman throughout the series to show how unremarkable he ultimately was. In the films, he was already portrayed so mundane, that they needed to remind us / convey his superior magical skill with an equally magical death or there would've been nothing to set him apart from anyone else... only they botched that by using it for Bellatrix, too
Yes this was an absolute betrayal of the story
Yeah. Like why would he just disintegrate like that? Weird.
They didn't show voldemort and his family's backstory because they were too focused on some weird ass romance scene that wasn't even in the books
It's so bizarre
The romance in the movies is physically painful to watch. I have no idea what they were thinking.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2ptThe beauty of the Harry/Ginny book romance is that it's so easy. So simple. It just clicks into place
Rewatched the 6th movie yesterday and this aspect made me LIVID. So much of Voldemort's lore is revealed and all they gave us were 2 of his flashbacks, and even then they cut out some things in the memory at the orphanage. The woman only tells Dumbledore that there've been "incidents with the other children, nasty things", but she never talks about the kids in the cave, and she never tells him about the rabbit hanging from the rafters. It really gives you a different perspective of him, like he's so evil when he's young but then you see him again in Slughorn's memory and he's acting relatively normal... It would have been so chilling if only the focus had been on Voldemort and not the weirdy forced romances.
@@themoon7435 Yeah it's such a shame - Voldemort's backstory is the best part of that book. It was so interesting getting an insight into his past.
I mean we know he was an orphan and was abandoned, also the romance wasn't that bad, it wasn't that much that it took away or stole time from possibly going more in depth about his backstory really.
It's funny how the best film portrayal of Voldemort was in the Chamber of Secrets.
I like philosophers stone too. Chris columbus was the best thing about harry poter
His teen actor did such a great job.
Chamber of secrets is the best film I think
Who else has/had a crush on teen riddle from cos though cos I certainly did
I always thought his delivery of one particular line in that film was cold, yet kind of funny since it kept up the theme of Voldy being dramatic in the films…
“Lord Voldemort will return… VERY. MUCH. ALIVE.”
A villain who is calm and collected is far more terrifying than one who laughs and smiles all the time.
Completely agree!
Usually true, but there exceptions like the joker.
These directors probably didn't watch jaws enough times
@@HappyCatholicDanethe difference with Joker is that he's completely insane and his laughs are the manifestation of his insanity and that makes him scary. When Voldemort laughs, it's more because he thinks he's invincible and therefore arrogant, which makes him less threatening and makes him look more comical.
@@Baracuda-xj6zk I would agree with that, yes.
Voldemort’s movements should have born more like the Nazgûl from the Lord of the Rings; deliberate, menacing, and smooth to the point they seem to be almost ghostly
Book: "Voldemort said lazily"
Movie: Voldemort angrily shouting as he violently rips off his Death Eaters' masks.
See also...
Book: "Dumbledore asked calmly"
Movie: Dumbledore angrily shouting as he manhandles Harry
The Dumbledore comparison of him calmly vs shouting in the movie makes me laugh every time
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Seriously, what is it with Harry Potter film directors and angry shouting??? LMAO
@@timothyvanhoeck233 agreed. However, I think it is a much wider problem than just HP. There's some kind of belief or value that truth and meaning only comes from anger, or something like that. Thus, the conclusion that people make is that to be believable you must be angry; anything else is just fake and manipulative. And, supposedly, the "best" form of anger is hate. I think it just makes everything hollow and meaningless. I was also disappointed in the final battle. It was so poignant and meaningful in the book. I don't know why the movie makers believe that somehow making something flashy and animated makes something better. I thought it was a huge fundamental mistake to have the final battle with no one watching. It was just such an anticlimactic and disappointing contradiction and invalidation of what the higher level battle was across all the books. "It doesn't matter whether it means anything so long as it looks good!" :-(
Thanks for the analysis! :-)
@@timothyvanhoeck233It's just different media how things are more easily translated. Also, people have a shorter attention span for watching movies than when reading books
More like Book: “Dumbledore said calmly”
Movie: “Dumbledore said, panting”
About his physicality, Voldemort would NEVER stoop to the level of muggle fighting, he’s find it demeaning of his status. You’re absolutely right. The fighting scene in deathly hallows is ridiculous.
Whenever I think of the Harry Potter movies, my first thought is always that scene and how ridiculous it is.
Honestly it not that bad. Him being so physically expressive really conveys his passion and desire to achieve his goals. When he started punching harry it really showed the hatred and disgust he had for Harry. He was pushed to his limits so badly he thought "fuck it I'm beating the shit out of this kid". That's how personal it is.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt I never stopped laughing at the idea of Voldemort straight up bitch slapping a teenage kid in the middle of a battle to the death
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt The scene in the last movie is when it actually makes most sense for him to stoop to using his physicality though. At that point in both the book and the movie, he's already lost thematically. The wand isn't working for him. Harry hasn't died. In the book, it's the only time he's visibly frightened of Harry, and the only time Harry actually finds himself confidently explaining something TO Voldermort, and speaking down to him, calling him Tom. It's a total reversal of the power dynamic that was present in every previous encounter they had.
They could probably have done more with it, and had Harry taunting him for being reducing to fighting like a Muggle. But the idea is in keeping with the loss of power and control that he undergoes once Harry returns.
So fun fact; when I first read GOF, I missed Voldemort’s initial physical description so I ended up imagining him looking like an older Tom Riddle from COS, and somehow I found that to be more scary and threatening than his actual appearance, the handsome exterior apposed to the monster that lay beneath.
I always found it interesting to see Voldemort's past as a handsome, charismatic young man compared to the psychotic monster he becomes. It'd be an interesting alternate story to see how things would have been different had he continued on the path.
He would have still been powerful, he pretended he wants to ( ironically) teach Defence against the Dark Arts , He could have achieved bad lot at Hogwarts as a Professor or even Head Master .
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2ptremember the monster was always there. As soon as he figured out he had powers, he used them to bully the other orphans, he even made a rabbit hang itself from the rafters. Plus I think he saw his transformation as a symbol of how more powerful he becomes, and it made him look different from other people, and more importantly his father whom he despised
The most scary appearance of Voldemort IMO was when he came back at Hogwarts to discuss the DADA job with Dumbledore in the books. I imagine he looked like that in the first wizarding war hairless.
If Voldemort didn't start a death cult and just did the tried and true method of becoming a politician or influential figure and then he might've actually got his dream world of no muggle borns
I still can't get over how they removed so much of his back story from 6.
His back story was one of the most interesting parts of that book for me.
Same. They turned it into teen drama. And that’s why people despise it. But the book was awesome. Slowly getting drip fed more of his backstory
Best book
Shoelace
bro, we must cut time here and there to have more of the akward teen romance and the movie original action scene at the burrow
One of the things that bugged me, In the book Voldemort's death was incredible ordinary. He just flopped over onto the ground like a Muggle who's heart had just stopped beating.
In the movie his death was exactly the opposite. It even seemed that Voldemort saw what was happening and understood that he was dying.
Voldemort despised the ordinary. He would have despised his book death not only because it was his death, but also because it was so ordinary.
He may have despised his movie death, but it would have pleased him that at least it was a way no other wizard had passed away. Think of the stories they would tell about it!
He deserved a boring, ordinary death.
Completely agree! Also I think the way he died in the books was important for the other characters to 1. Know he was dead for sure this time and 2. See he died as an ordinary man (as you said).
Well jk really didn't remember the bit where he has little less than the meanest ghost in substantial essence which the movie remembers. Y'know there's nothing left for voldemort to exist after his body was put under strain of a wand that wouldn't listen an attacking wizard and owner of the wand magic backlash is no joke especially broken black magic.
Also, he had to leave a body behind so people could see him and not be afraid anymore.
If he just vanished or turned to ash, people could just say he fled and escaped and keep his legend alive.
Voldemort had to die like his most mundane victims, to strip him of that insidious aura of mysticism and menace he had cultivated.
Voldemort, anyway, didn't die ordinarily, technically speaking.
Did you forget he split his soul into 7 pieces and hid them in 7 objects called Horocruxes?
The seventh and final Horocruxes was the serpent Nagini.
By mistake, an eighth Horocruxes were created that were not meant to be created. (Harry Potter).
When the last Horocruxes the 7 th was destroyed (Nagini The serpent).
He turned into small dust particles (ashes). Peter Pettigrew betrayed his friend James Potter, and he also betrayed Sirius Black. He revealed to Voldy where the Pottermore house stood.
James didn't have his wand that night so he died.
Voldy was going to kill baby Harry Potter that night with the killing curse spell; Ada Cadaver!
But James Potter's wife (born: Evans) Lily loved her son like a mother so much that she cried; No! Not my Harry. And sacrificed her own life between Voldy's wand and Harry's bed.
Through a love spell.
Harry survived with a Scar on his forehead.
Inside this scar a tiny bit of Voldy's soul attached itself.
And thus Harry could hear and communicate with snakes.
And everyone should know to have realized it by now, that film directors do not slavishly follow the books.
@@WaggaDaBaggano they don’t follow the books, they make their own version which 99.99% of the time is significantly worse.
I feel like Ralph Fiennes gets slept on by a lot of Potter fans because of his portrayal of Voldemort. Had he brought the energy of Ramses from Prince of Egypt or Amon Goeth from Schindler’s List, then Voldemort’s film portrayal I think would have been fantastic
Ralph Fiennes is a great actor, I think it's just the vision either him or the director had for Voldemort which let them down, rather than his own skill.
Another problem with movie Voldemort that I realized in my last reading is he never comes across as a leader who formed the Deatheaters and kept them in line. Instead he comes across as someone who was appointed leader through committee.
Interesting point! I never thought about it from this angle.
@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Bullies in real life attract other bullies through threats, violence, and mockery. They cling to the bigger bully for protection from him, and the power they can inherit from him.
Voldemort: Has superior (dark) magic ability.
Also Voldemort: Primarily spams Avada Kedavra with occasional uses of Imperius and Cruciatus curses.
Tbf that's all he seems to do in the books too lmao
@@NeloBladeOfRanni You seems to forget the silver shield, the army of inferi, defenses around his horcruxes, fire snake spell, appearing in silence during combat (no other dark wizard have done that), the lightning spell he used to break the shield of Hogwarts, Wormtale's cursed silverhand that killed him for disloyalty, the cursed DADA job, the curse on Dumbledore's hand that killed him the end.
@@headstrongbachelor3152It didnt kill him. It was about to, but Snape killed him before the curse was done doing it's thing.
@@rarescevei8268 And if Snape did not killed him the curse would have killed him.
@@headstrongbachelor3152All is cool, but the dada curse is so strange: how can you possibly curse a job, something that's just a concept and don't have physical form.
And if he could do that (or Rowling possibly just came up with it and didn't think of consequences) why didn't he use it more often and on more valuable concepts, like curse orden of Phenix or something
I agree with you. Lord Voldemort was stoic to the point everything around him seemed like a waste of his time in the books.
I heard in the behind the scenes of the films, Ralph Fiennes was told to tone his acting of Lord Voldemort down as his screen play scared to many of the children so much they cried uncontrolibly.
I so wish we got that version that Ralph originally wanted to do. He wanted to keep true to the books however the directors said it was too scary 🙄
Great video!
Thanks very much! I've been hearing some conflicting information about what Ralph wanted vs what the director wanted but I guess whoever's fault it was ultimately it's definitely a shame.
Which is odd when they show literal torture and murder in alot of these films.
The young voldemort in the Half Blood Prince movie was a actually a quite better depiction of voldemort in the books. Very calm, collected and manipulative while bein very confident. Idk 🤷🏻♂️
I really like the teen Voldemort in Chamber of Secrets as well.
I agree, I think out of all the Voldemort portrayals he got it the most correct, which makes it even worse that they cut so many of the scenes where we would have found out about his lore, how he got Marvolo's ring and his visit to Little Hangleton etc. Half-Blood Prince could have been the best movie by far if we'd gotten all that, but all Yates seemed to care about was the cringey romances. Ugh.
I think a lot of the problems with Voldemort in the films stem from his initial re-reveal in GoF. Mike Newell, who directed GoF not only never read the books, he had an active contempt for them. He only did it for the money. This is why he got so many scenes and characters so blatantly wrong. But with all of the strange character choices made in that film, going forward, the next director, David Yates was essentially forced to keep Voldemort as bizarre as he was in GoF.
This is it right here. It all comes back to how much Newell was the wrong person for GoF and the series as a whole.
Wow I didn't know that about the director, but I guess it isn't too surprising. If I ever have a book series adapted I would definitely insist on a director who understood the source material.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt well, they had two of them to start. Chris Columbus directed the first two films and was very faithful to the books (except for maybe his team’s Voldemort design). And then came Alfonso Cuaron who had a darker more tonally diverse take on PoA than Columbus had, but he also ended up leaving. Cuaron treats everything he does as a passion project and as a result, even though he was not a good overall fit for a Harry Potter movie, he did everything in his power to make it a great film. And Columbus had a history of directing similar family-friendly films in the past, loved working with kids, and seemed to be a huge fan of the series, anyway. Newell had neither of these skillsets.
Funny. Goblet Of Fire is the best Harry Potter film
@@idakev By what metric?
WB really screwed up the films after the first few. They're lucky so many fans were desperate to see Harry Potter in the theaters. I doubt they'd have that kind of success today. Yates was probably the worst thing to happen to the franchise. Palpatine was more terrifying than film Voldemort.
"Palpatine was more terrifying than film Voldemort."
Do you not like Palpatine, friend?
@@FMK03 I do, Palps will always be my favorite Star Wars villian.
In all honesty, I think Ralph Fienes Voldy had some definite moments. Rowling sort of made him comically evil. The best villains are ones we can relate to on some level. We can see their reasoning though we would make different choices. Truthfully, it's only because of the extended lore that Palpatine is as terrifying as he is. A cultivated, astronomically narcissistic sociopath master manipulator able to tap into a limitless font of power.
Voldemort just comes across as a self loathing archetype of evil manifest. Voldemort was never the reason I liked the books.
@@tomfoolery5680 Well, for my own opinion, Book Voldemort was frightening up until Book 7 which was totally rushed/blundered. People were acting out of character, including Voldemort, Lore was retconned, and new things were freshly invented just to give Harry the W. It wasn't the same Voldemort.
@@FMK03 I loved Palpatine. He was terrifying in ROTJ. The Clone Wars followed up on that, especially in that duel with the two brothers.
They turned Voldemort from a coiled serpent in the books to a caged beast in the movies. Still menacing but most of the danger is gone
Good analogy
@@melissam597 thanks!
Epstein > Voldemort
@@stellviahohenheim what about Umbitch vs Voldemort vs Epstein? Who beats who?
@@stellviahohenheim Why do you compare a fictional character with someone real? lol.
Anyway, Voldemort would kill Epstein simply by pointing a stick at him.
"Voldemort in the books isn't just a human villain.."
Its kinda ironic. In the books, when he died, he died like any normal person would as well,
"..Tom Riddle hit the floor with a mundane finality, his body feeble and shrunken, the white hands empty, the snakelike face vacant and unknowing.."
In the movies, where his characterisation is much more human, he dies like some eldritch entity, going up in ashes 😂
Haha good point - his death in the books was much more fitting. The movies missed the whole point of how he died.
Ralph finnes is a great actor, but i also feel this. Voldemort in the movies seemed like someone with anger problems. In the books he is rarely shown with explosing anger. The only times you see him geniunly angry is during his interactions with dumbledore or harry, where he cant dominate the situation like he does with others. In the other parts of the books when interacting with others, he is shown as cold, and inconsiderate unless the person is of special use to him. Then he can be charming.
I also found his outbursts of anger in book 7 after he finds out that Harry knows about Horcruxes to be especially scary. We haven't seen Voldemort lose control and needlessly kill a bunch of people before so when we do its scary. The movie was trying to hint at that, but it was usual par-for-the-course Voldemort shenanigans
I always imagined Voldemorts physical actions to be somewhat similar to Anthony Hopkins portrayal of Hannibal in silence of the lambs where he's still in the prison.
Very cold, calm and collected, with the underlying sinister air of someone extremely dangerous.
I've only seen short clips from Hannibal, but from what I've seen I agree with you.
Yes!! This is exactly what I immediately thought of hearing the points made in this video
Cillian Murphy would make a great Voldemort imo.
@@PedroTorres-ky2yx ooo I like that suggestion! He would be perfect for the role
@@PedroTorres-ky2yx I agree he'd be great! He's one of those actors who's able to absolutely nail that chilling, emotionless aura.
Voldemort hugging Draco always reminded me of Mini-Me and Doctor Evil...
3:08 - At this point in the story, Voldemort _knows_ that the Elder Wand has failed to kill Harry before, and is getting frustrated as it continues to fail him now. So I actually quite like the idea of him completely losing control to the point where he almost forgoes magic entirely and just resorts to kicking and hitting Harry instead.
If this was the first or _only_ time we see Voldemort acting like this, it could have been genuinely effective, but the moment is weakened and made redundant by the other examples.
Yeah I see where you're coming from, you could make an argument that a desperate and cornered Voldemort would lash out knowing the end is near. But as you said, I think in conjunction with everything else it still isn't completely true to his character.
Reminds me of the great mouse detective when ratigan just snaps
Growing up I had a hard time dealing when the movie and the book diverged. Then I decided to consider the book and the movie as entirely independent stories.
No matter how close they are, what happens in the book has nothing to do with what happens in the movie.
I had to decide this too with all my favorite books turning to films. Otherwise it would bum me out. Keeping them separate in my brain is a must. ❤️
@@kdubs83the first two movies are very faithful though and I wonder, how do you feel about the reboot show coming up?
@@nerdyworld938 I am very much looking forward to seeing what they’ll be putting out. Especially when given the extra screen time by doing in episodic format. ❤️❤️
@@kdubs83 yeah I just hope that they don’t do 45 minute episodes for 8 episodes. Like I hope the first season is 13 episodes but they could also be like the books to where the first book was 300 pages, and over time they kept on getting bigger. So hopefully the same thing will happen for the show to where we’ll go from 8 episode seasons to 13 episode seasons that are about 45 minutes
@@nerdyworld938 the only thing I I hope is they get the casting right
The movies did this to the point I don't think it wouldn't be repeated
I think you are right, even the fact that he chose to be resurrected with what looked like a frail, repulsive form tells us he gives no value to his own body, he doesn't need muscles to do anything since he can just use magic. His body only exists to carry a wand.
Thanks! Yeah also a good point, his physical body is completely degraded but it doesn't matter to him.
Only glimpse to book Voldemort on big screen was Philosopher's Stone movie. And perhaps young Riddle in Chamber of Secrets.
Yeah agreed he was great in these two.
Point 1 reminds me of Gaara during the Chinin Exams in Naruto. When he has his fight with Rock Lee. Early on, Lee is throwing punches and kicks at Gaara, and Gaara just controls his sand to block it without actually moving himself. The unchanging facial expression and being unmovable makes them seem insurmountable as an opponent.
Great comparison! And it shows that it's possible to portray a character like that if done well, Gaara was terrifying at that point.
It's even worse - the sand is completely automatic, so literally all Gaara had to do in all his fight is just stand. That's why he's so shocked whe Lee lands a hit - that's the first hit he ever took in his life.
There were so many things wrong with the movies, main plots and things being ruined by the movies. What really got to me was the fact that all the death eaters and order of the phoenix could fly when in the books only voldemort was known to be able to actually fly and it terrified the order in the deathly hallows.
This has always bugged me as well! I'm glad I'm not the only one!
Shouldn’t that be considered a good addition though? If random kids from Hogwarts can fly while playing quidditch then surely death eaters or the order not being able to fly makes no sense.
Voldemort can fly unaided, almost every witch and wizard can fly with brooms, magicked motorcycles, etc. No member of the rescue party was flying like Peter Pan.
@@teeboz6237 For me it's more about how flying unaided in the books is considered a big deal, which almost everyone does in the movies (if they used brooms or something else I wouldn't have minded).
There was another. Dumbledore's extremely controversial double-agent.
Tom Riddle's body hit the floor with a mundane finality.
Yeah. That was the true ending. The movie was a false ending. Poor delivery really. He was supposed to just drop dead, not dissappear slowly into a million pieces.
This is why if anyone was to remake Harry Potter, it should be 2D animated.
I'd love to see an animated Harry Potter series. I think adult animation is an untapped gold mine in the west (see Arcane and Invincible).
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Also, could redo the Drako hug by having Voldemort patting him on the head in an eerie and stilted manner, like someone who hates being touched and doesn’t know how to do even the most minimal sign of caring?
Wow. This hit the nail on the head of how big of a difference there is between book Voldemort and film Voldemort. The issue really is that it seems he was written in the films to be semi-comedic, it’s to the point that you can literally find compiliation videos of him “being dramatic” or the weird sounds/motions he makes. This stops him from being scary. I don’t blame Ralph Fiennes for this, he actually is a talented actor, this one’s on the writing.
That being said, I would argue that Goblet of Fire was the closest to book Voldemort of all the Ralph Fiennes era of Voldemort (as that one had less of the dramatic stuff and more of what he is famed for in the books)… though if you asked me which film did Voldemort the best… I’d argue it was The Philosopher’s Stone, as he was legitimately scary in that film.
Like a user here said, in the books Voldemort is comparable to Satan, but in the films he’s more like a stereotypical and dramatic bully. Which isn’t bad if you only look at Harry Potter as a film series, the problem is how much it misses the point of his character in the source material.
Great video.
Thank you! Totally agree with you, and I lie the blame mostly at the foot of the director and writers. I do feel Goblet of Fire was the best showing of Voldemort in the movies, yet still not great, and he got steadily worse after that.
I was at first very pleased that Ralph Fiennes was going to portray Voldemort. But I felt something was off and I couldn’t put my finger on what it was. And I was disappointed that I preferred the first actor to portray him. Now i understand why.
I still love Ralph Fiennes. Not sure why he portrayed him the way he did because he had the ability to do it right.
I read another comment here saying that apparently he was told to dial his performance back a bit because it scared children on the set, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was the reason.
The physicality of voldemort in GoF is actually not irritating to me. He finally got his body back, of course he’d be testing it out and getting comfortable in his new digs. It’s everything after that’s irritating because it’s no longer justifiable in my eyes. I’m guessing the physicality is for the visual on screen. Good video though, really.
“AVADA KEDAVERA!!!” Voldemort said, calmly.
This will never not make me laugh.
This was a detail that stood out in the fanfic "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" - that indifference, rather than hate, could power the Killing Curse better. It always seemed to me that _that_ was how Voldemort should be tossing off AKs left and right - not that he was filled with hate, but that he considered himself so far above everyone that they, and their existence, meant nothing to him, so killing them was nothing more than sweeping vermin out of his way.
Honestly, I always imagine Voldemort looking like Devimon from Digimon Adventure. Tall, thin, red eyes, and completely evil.
From the passages in the books his movement and demeanor should be more like Darth Vader. Even in saber duels Vader doesn’t exert himself. Essentially Voldemort is a mob boss who doesn’t have to shout, yell, or make unnecessary movements. His magic should also be an extension of himself instead of something he wields. It’s like he’s trying to be magical in the films instead of being magical. Because he is a master with it his use should be smooth and minimal even with heavy spells. He should have been more like Snape was in the films.
I think a good parallel that came to mind while watching your video is Vecna from Stranger Things. Obviously him and Voldemort have a lot of differences, but they both share dark and powerful mastery of supernatural powers. What makes Vecna so intimidating in the show is exactly what you pointed out was missing from the movie’s Voldemort: he’s always slow, emotionless, and always behaves in a manner that tells us he is in complete control of the situation and his powers (unlike Elevan).
JK Rowling said that without magic, Voldemort would be a pitiful, pathetic thing. Warped body, face and mind, physically feeble, distorted high voice etc.
That's extremely interesting! I've never heard that before but that fits perfectly with how I picture Voldemort. Thanks for sharing.
no she didn’t
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pthe’s lying don’t listen to this fool
okay @@drew1342
@@drew1342 even if JK Rowling didn't say that, it's still true, dude has the body of a 90 year old who's clearly on his deathbed, and he's destroyed his face to a degree he doesn't even look human. And while the movies didn't convey this well, in the books, voldy is said to have a rather high (though icy) voice), which is hilarious for a man.
Ralph Fiennes said when he laughed as Voldemort he was trying to avoid having it sound like a cliche evil laugh, but the result ended up being way funnier.
He's a good actor so it's a shame he was either misused or misguided in the movies.
I couldn’t express my sheer anger and disappointment that the final scene was Voldemort slapping and kicking Harry, at the expense of Minerva, Kingsley and Horace all fighting him at once before Harry revealed himself and they had their final standoff.
They robbed Horace of an important character moment. Pompous and scared, but he stepped up and fought Voldemort directly to protect the students and avenge Lily.
Completely agree. The final confrontations in the movie were horrible.
i grew up the movies and absolutely love them but after reading the books it’s so disappointing to see how many great things were changed like Voldemort, Ron and Hermiones relationship, Hermiones character itself. They even got Fantastic Beasts wrong which is a perfect example of what you said in the beginning. “They wouldn’t do well today.”
I haven't watched the new fantastic beasts but I wasn't really a fan of the clips I saw from them. I feel like after the first 7 books a lot of the adaptations and sequels were disappointing.
I feel as tho that the movies made him more of a comedic villain rather than the embodiment of cruelty and corruption.
Voldemort isn’t just a bad guy villain, he’s literally the personality of all the worst qualities of humanity and society.
I wish they made him more cold and less human.
Yeah it's really disappointing. Really odd choice by the director to be honest.
What is comedic about Volemort in the films?
@@donavonhoward114did we not see the laugh?
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2ptcan you do the Green Goblin as I look on Tumbler called the Misconception of Norman Osborn?
@@srstriker6420 I'll definitely look that up - watch this space!
I agree entirely. The portrayal of Voldemort in the movies made me stop watching them. Like THIS the main villain? My dad is scarier than this dude.
Very true. Voldemort should almost be void of emotion rather than be beholden to the intense "bad" ones like anger. Everything should present itself essentially as irrelevant to him unless it is directly connected to his goal.
You hit the nail on the head I agree.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt And to be clear I only derived that from everything that you said, so thank you for making the video lol.
@@peeledbanana311 Glad you enjoyed it!
Never read the books but book-Voldemort sounds interesting
Never really loved movie Voldemort but the Graveyard scene always stuck with me. He had everything taken from him by a m*dblood and her baby, who is now considered on his level. Spent 13 year to come back and he has had it, he was unhinged and I loved it. “I want you to look at me when I kill you!!”
But being so different form what you liked in the book, disappointment in characterization this different makes sense
Thanks man, I definitely recommend reading the series if you have time, especially if you're a fan of the franchise anyway.
Finally someone gets it. If the movies were accurate the books people would understand why Voldemort is the most powerful dark wizard of all time. They should have kept the actor from the first movie...
The portrayal of Voldemort in Philosophers Stone was actually pretty scary considering it was made for children.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt My little sister told me she had a nightmare of him. I would enjoy if they made a movie or trilogy on the first wizarding war, so we could see Voldemort in his prime. Probably to scary for the kids...
@@headstrongbachelor3152 yeah pls that would get more audience more than a reboot
The actor was properly cast. GOF had a terrible director
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt I rewatched it on DVD with my uncle once and he was spooked lol. He asked why the heck an 8 year old was watching this
I liked Voldemort in Goblet. His manerisms, as if he is high on every emotion because he is back. His mockery to Harry. Also the spanish VA made it as if he was restraining himself of talking too high or too fast because he is feeling everything at that second and has to restrain himself
I'm surprised youtube recommend such a small channel to me. But the video was so well done that i thought you would have more subs
Hey man thanks a lot that's really appreciated. I actually just started the channel a couple of weeks ago so it's great to hear you're enjoying it. If you have any requests for topics definitely let me know as well!
@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Nice video man, I can tell that as long as the algorithm likes you then you're gonna be big.
Just popped up on mine too! Subscribing now!
@@kdubs83 Thank you!
@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt I entirely agree to the previous people. Getting a sub from me!
I do agree with you in most of these points. But to be fair, JK Rowling did put a lot of emphasis on Voldemort being "just human" when he eventually dies.I think in the movies they try to show him as a human but with otherworldly aspects.
If they were trying to depict him as a human, they blew it when he magically disintegrated into nothing. The whole point was that despite him thinking he was a godlike figure, he was still a mortal.
I actually didn’t mind him being too physical but yeah I wish we see more of his magical powers. Still enjoyed Ralph Fiennes’ acting
I see both sides with the physicality. While I like both versions, I assume that they made him more physical in the films to show his insecurity. Voldemort probably wants to show his power, as he was depowered for so long--plus his moving around and emotional behavior is probably a movie thing, with concern that his lazy behavior would make the audience bored.
Exactly at the point. But modern movies are rarely good in depicting grandiose evil and intelligence. Also, the most stupid thing they have done in the movies is that all wizard fight with Prioi Incantatem...This was just one time event in the GoF. That's that. Because of that, Harry appears as if he is as strong as Vildemort who in fact can defeat a whole army of Aurors just by himself...The whole point of the books is that Harry triumphs not by power, nor talent but by the love of his parents and friends. It is Voldemort's view that what wins at the end is power, talent, and raw might. Priori incantatem made it as if Harry was as powerful as Voldemort which not only is not the case but it defeats the whole point of the book series and the whole point of Harry. The movies were directed by little men, who neither had respect for the books, nor had the deeply religious, wise view that Rawling had
Good points! I agree, very often we see the original vision and themes of the author lost in the adaptation.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt They have ruined Dumbledore the same way...
@@lachezarsimeonov6437 I actually made another, similar video on Dumbledore if you want to check that out too.
They don't all use that spell though, there is a variety they use. I mean no Harry appears strong but obviously not as strong as Voldemort. Yess and in the movies he only wins with help from his parents and friends, I mean at the end Neville destroyed the last horcrux which was crucial to Harry beating Voldemort. Not really he never seemed as powerful as Voldemort and only won once Voldemort was severely weakened, it doesn't defeat the point of the book series or Harry it follows it pretty well in fact.
I mean....he still made some pretty good movie adaptations to be fair.
@@lachezarsimeonov6437 how was dumbledore ruined?
What I liked especially in the books was his death.
He wanted to be special and unique and did almost anything to be so.
Yet when it came to an end, he died just like any other person would.
No scream, no special magical effects, he just fell down where he stood, proving that he was just like anyone else.
Meanwhile the movies failed to see that point and instead made him special by having him flake away.
Ralph Fiennes is a great actor, this was his take on Voldemort which was why he came off as theatrical
To your point about Voldemort relying on magic over his physicality and humanity, this is specifically contrasted in book 7 by Harry, who digs Dobby's grave by hand. And whilst doing this Harry is able to block out Voldemort's thoughts and feelings. It's a specific thing that makes Harry and Voldemort different from each other. One values his mundane humanity, one tries to get rid of it.
Wow this is such a good catch and I completely missed this. Thanks so much for sharing you're completely right, it's the deliberate contrast between Harry and Voldemort.
I disagree, being cold and slow works in a book but not in a movie where they also kill from a far. You can’t have Voldemort standing in a corner doing nothing all day, and he is still very flamboyant, just not physically. His plans and show boating is alway on par with his live action counterpart
I never really thought about it but you're completely right.
I'm very glad that in my language's dub, they gave him a very cold voice. That helped.
I remember playing the Ps1 games when i was little, and whenever voldemort was on screen I was scared shltless because the games gave him the right vibe. 90% of times you encounter him he's just a dark figure standing there, lurking in the shadows, effortlessly menacing
Awesome video essay, hope this blows up dude! Got my sub!
Thanks very much! Out of interest what language was that?
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt I'm german! And his voice actor voices Ralph Fiennes in almost every movie he's in. Udo Schenk if you want to look him up
Totally agree. Only the first two movies got the essence of the books.
I never read the books, and don't plan to, but how he is in the movie works for me. Fiennes did a great job with the role and while he is far from being a cold villain, having him being unhinged, almost insane, makes him threatening as well.
The only things I really diagree about are the hugging Draco scene and his voice. I think Ralph Fiennes' voice fits the character really well. And I think the hugging scene portrays Voldemort's inability to feel love really well, which is a core characteristic of his in the books. It's like he's *trying* to be a human by hugging Draco, but it comes across as really creepy because he doesn't really know how to do it.
Other than that I agree with almost every point. It's funny because there's basically the "Dumbledore asked calmly" equivalent scene from Voldemort in the series. In the first chapter of Deathly Hallows, at Malfoy Manor, the passage goes as follows:
_“Wormtail,” said Voldemort, with no change in his _*_quiet, thoughtful tone,_*_ and without removing his eyes from the revolving body above, “have I not spoken to you about keeping our prisoner quiet?”_
Meanwhile, in the movie Voldemort SHOUTS that line to Wormtail. I think that scene demonstrates the difference between book/movie Voldemort really well.
Great catch with the Wormtail scene - yeah Voldemort for the most part is generally very much in control in the scenes he's in.
I agree with you that Ralph's voice isn't too bad in the movies, it would have been hard to pull off a true-to-book-voice in live action to be honest, it might end up sounding a bit strange. I'm still not a huge fan of the hugging scene because I feel like Voldemort would still consider it beneath him, he doesn't really have a need to emulate human affection.
Good video. Nice editing. Professional sound design. Genuine understanding of the source material. Well done.
Thank you very much man, really appreciate that!
I had no idea I shared traits with Voldemort.
This made me crack up haha.
Yeah Voldemort needed the Sukuna treatment in the movies
I absolutely love Sukuna as a villain, but I think they're both such different characters they'd be portrayed in totally different ways.
The moment of Voldemort hugging Draco was improvised by Ralph Fiennes
The more I read the books, the less I enjoy the movies, the more I look forward to the TV show.
This is the kind of Voldemort content I've been wanting!
I'm glad you enjoyed it! If there are any other characters you're interested in let me know.
The way you described him at the beginning even makes him seem more menacing then from the films. A almost robotic/A.i. type of movement and communication. Also anything that doesn’t seem human and seems animalistic or alien makes ppl naturally uneasy since we can’t relate. Great video (from someone who hasn’t read the books)
Thank you glad you enjoyed it! It's worth checking out the books if you're a fan of the series.
I always thought the only time Voldy should have become animated and physical is the final confrontation with Harry. Because he keeps failing to kill Harry
These are all valid points but I wish to add to them first the scene at platform 9 and 3/4 where Harry imagine Voldemort on the platform wearing a muggle suit really a muggle suit to the man who hates muggles and wants to exterminate them it doesn't line up with his character The second is exactly how he moved throughout the movies. I agree that his movements did diminish the menace bot with each successive movie. His movements went from sure-footed, angry too angry awkward and clumsy by the final movie he looks and acts like he is mentally and physically impaired I wasn't afraid of him. I almost felt sorry for him and that was really disappointing
Great points thanks for sharing. I completely forgot about the scene where he's wearing a suit it's been a while since I've seen the movies, but that really makes no sense.
Well that was just Harry imagining him, afraid he could be anywhere, watching him, so he pictures him wearing something that blends in more in a crowd
Great video man a lot of good points raised they definitely didn't do Voldemort justice in the films I prefer the more menacing vibe in the books
What destroyed the 8th movie for me was when Voldemort was hugging Draco and laughing 🤢🤮🤮 anytime i think about rewatching, remembering that scene instantly kills it for me
I remember my theater laughing when he hugged draco
@@kaidose In the film theater I laughed when Dobby died and the girl I was with said "thank god that disgusting thing died." lol
I think that they gave Yates TOO MUCH creative freedom when it came to the last few movies.
The order of the Phoenix was decent but halfblood prince and deathly hallows didn't make any sense.
He literally introduced or rather Failed to introduce important characters and he threw in the storylines that nobody would know anything about UNLESS they read the book.
There was so much more that could have been done with the last three movies and I hope that they fix the mistakes they made when they release the max series
My mental image of Voldemort was something more like the Gravekeeper
(Thinning hair included)With red eyes and white skin.
Voldemort looks like a normal person in the movies, he has a little bit of emotion in his speaking tone and doesn’t have that cold, evil voice, his voice might be evil enough. but instead has a lower pitched version of it in my opinion and looks too human with that normal pale face but without a nose and has no “glaring red eyes”. He looks nothing like a monster or an alien even though he is a monster and did countless crimes. He has no sharp teeth, except regular worn-down almost yellow teeth. He has regular human ears. He has no long black nails. Except human-colored ones. I think…
In the books, however, Voldemort doesn’t look too human. He has not much emotion in his speaking tone and has that cold, evil voice. He still has that pale face still without a nose but with those slit nostrils. He has “glaring red eyes”. He is more monstrous-looking and a bit more alien-ish and a lot less approachable. (He still is a monster.). He has very sharp teeth and might not have any ears, except large ear holes and a couple of creases on each one or something. Idk. I think he might have long, black nails, I think…
Yeah, so…
Voldie huging Draco in the movie looks like a mob boss being "alpha agressive".
Ralph Fiennes once said that his inclination was to "underplay" the role, but then understood that "you can't underplay Voldemort. He IS evil."
So he tried to make him as unpredictable as possible.
He's a great actor, but this wasn't the right choice for the character.
Agreed, although I'm actually not sure who would be a good choice to play someone like Voldemort, no actors really come to mind.
I think the movies should get a reboot so they can fix all the problems with them and actually make a good adaptation
I'd love to see a faithful adaptation. I actually would like to see maybe an animated series or something, done in a darker style.
I totally agree with you on what makes a villain truly terrifying. I also think there's a noticeable difference in how Voldemort behaves in films 4 and 5 compared to 7 and 8. In the first two, he's almost "excited" to be back. He's very active, openly angry, and aggressive. While he wants to kill Harry, he also wants to torture him. A simple boy was the reason he lost his powers and couldn't dominate the Wizarding World for 13 years. In the fourth film, he does this with spells, and in the fifth, he messes with Harry mentally by showing him things that aren’t real and making him feel alone. But after the sixth movie, he becomes much scarier, in my opinion. He starts realizing that Harry is actively searching for and destroying his Horcruxes, which makes him a direct threat. That's when Voldemort becomes more cold and calculating, with his anger and panic showing in occasional outbursts. His skin starts to shrivel, his voice becomes hoarser, and the Elder Wand slowly begins to crack and fail him. He’s desperate to avoid losing his powers again, which only fuels his hatred for Harry, and I think deep down, he was a little scared of him too. After all, Harry was the one who uncovered his secret. I think that’s why, in the final fight, Voldemort just slaps Harry and tries to strangle him. He’s completely lost, knowing this boy has survived his death curse twice and is on the verge of destroying the last Horcrux. I haven’t read all the books, so I can’t speak to the differences between them and the movies. But I do know that Ralph Fiennes portrayed Voldemort brilliantly, even if they may have gotten some aspects of his behavior wrong.
The book describing Voldemort not having lips made me picture the mouth of Sauron from return of the king
Dark magic, superiority complex, skull-like face and high-pitched cold voice
that's Skeletor!
Another change that completely mischaracterizes him is, in one of the few backstory lessons they actually put in the movie. A young Tom Riddle says "I can make bad things happen to people who annoy me. I can make them hurt if I want to." He says this with feverish excitement. How ever in the movie he says "I can make bad things happen to people to people who are MEAN to me" completely changing the meaning! And delivers it so sullenly, he's sullen the whole exchange and you get the impression of an upset mistreated boy. Which completely misses the point we're supposed to see that from the start he lacked love or care of any kind for people.
Great spot! It's actually been a while since I watched the movies so I've forgotten scenes like this, but you're completely right it changes the whole meaning of the scene.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Can't fully take credit the line change was pointed out to me but the overall demeanor change struck me as I was looking for the exact line. It really is night and day book Tom is thrilled to have his abilities validated and is bragging about all he can do.
fantastic video! hope the algorithm keeps pushing you and can't wait to see whats next!
Thank you for the kind words!
What all those points have in common is they make Voldemort less scary. I suspect they wanted to keep the age rating down to bring in a wider audience, all to make more money.
I've heard that said in behind the scenes articles for the films. One even showed an alternate scarier design the decided not to go with.
I actually think that the Goblet of Fire portrayal of Voldemort was the best of the movies. I’ve heard it that kids were so scared of Ralph Fiennes’ Voldemort in GoF that he was told to tone it down. Hence, “AAAVVVAAADDDAAA KEDDAVVRRRAAAA”.
They already got the look of Harry Potter, the titular character, wrong in the first film. Not surprised they got Voldie wrong too.
I love the description of his reaction to Harry's sacrifice. He is a little puzzled and curious what's going to happen.
Yeah, that whole chapter is brilliant.
the hug gave a italian mafia family vibe
Totally Agree with you brother.... That's why some people can't take him seriously because Raph Fiennes didn't do him justice and why some people think Grindelwald is more powerful but he isn't.... Voldemort is the most powerful and dangerous dark wizard of ALL TIME. Hopefully HBO Tv Series do him justice 💪
It always bugs me when people say Grindelwald is more powerful than Voldemort! I didn't realise it was HBO making the TV show, that gives me a lot more hope for it being good.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Yeah it bugs me too. And I'm optimistic because Jk Rowling is Involved plus the whole reason for this Tv Series is to be book accurate 😁
@summoner3438 yeah, a woke disaster.
@@sheevpalpatine6466 They better not do the woke shit because Jk and the Producers are against it at least.
@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt tbf that is kinda JK Rowlings fault imo haven't read the books in a few years but from what I remember outside of very specific moments like Voldemorts duel with dunbledore he very rarely does anything outside of the unforgiveable curses
I remember reading that one scene in the first chapter of Deathly Hallows Book when the Death Eaters were startled by a shrieking noise coming from the chambers. Voldemort, with no change in his quiet & thoughtful tone and still keeping his eyes on the revolving body, told Wormtail to keep their prisoner quiet. In the Movie, he suddenly shouts at Wormtail and ordered him to keep their guest silent. This reminded me of how Dumbledore was mischaracterized in the film version of Goblet of Fire. Voldemort was weirdly misinterpreted in the films. As much as I like Ralph Fiennes, the blame is on the script and the direction.
Good scene comparison, yep he's very consistently portrayed in the books. I spoke about how they messed up with Dumbledore in my video on him as well, I actually noticed while making the video that him and Voldemort have a lot of similarities.
I LOVED the first 3 Harry Potter movies. Those are the only ones I can repeatedly watch. After that, every movie afterwards just feels worse. And the way Voldemort acts is a huge part of that. I never read the books, but even I could tell there was a stark contrast between how he sounded and acted in the first movie, and when he actually showed up with his full body. It was so jarring!! The child that portrayed him in the flashbacks was more scary! Not to mention his design was awful! I hated the human eyes, because I saw snake like eyes before, when his body was still forming, and they looked way better. And he just looked and acted too goofy.. like I COULD NOT BELIEVE that this was the same character I saw in the first movie and the adult version of the child I saw in the flashbacks.. it just wasn’t clicking together.
It doesn't help that in the movie, Ralph Fiennes is only 5' 11" while Voldemort in thw books is at least 6' or more. In some scenes he seems shorter than every death eater. It gives you the feeling that Voldemort is just an ill-tempered short man rather than the wizard equivalent of the grim reaper.
This is the difference between books and film. They can have the villain be very slow, precise, and methodical in the books and have it work fine, but in a movie, it usually just comes across a lazy or uninteresting instead of creepy. I agree that they changed a lot from the books, but I think it’s fine either way because it’s still entertaining to watch.
Master Xehanort from Kingdom hearts will always truly be the best and most book accurate portrayal of Voldemort :-)
I've never played Kingdom Hearts but that sounds intriguing!
It's film vs book. They didn't want hours of a guy standing still.
The young Tom Riddle and Slughorn memory from the Half Blood Prince is closer to book Voldy's cold and calculating demeanor than the entirety of Ralph Feinnes' performance.
Yeah the young actors did a great job.
I feel like Voldemort standing still in a movie wouldn't translate well off of the pages of a book, most people wouldn't be intimidated by a emoteless character
The same thing i noticed about Darth Vader in Star Wars vs new iterations: In Rouge one he slices up rebel soldiers, in New Hope he appears when battle seizes and calmly overlooks dead bodies.
Fantastic Video, and some great points. I had some followup thoughts.
1. I understand why he's more physical in the movies, I think it stems from the media. Even if you ask Ralph to act still and slow, I doubt he could do it convincingly. Realistically, Book Voldemort wouldn't be interesting to watch as he's more of a presence character then an interacting one. I think making him move more was the right choice, if not faithful, as it makes him more interesting for a viewer to wach. and I do like how unstable he seemed even though that wasn't a book aspect; like he'll kill anyone on the spot for no reason.
2. I think his emotiveness is 100% not book, but works in a kinda of different fashion. In the book, he's emotionally stunted like a loveless serpent, and that works. The movies make him seem inhuman by how much he fails to connect with anything, he's emotions seem wild and not approaite; like a psychopath trying to mimic them. His awkwardness, while abit too comical, does kinda work for me in a fashion of showing how alien he is now- even when he attempts to feign something lighter, it comes across as deeply unnerving and wrong. I could see Tom Riddle using his charm and rapier wit to make people laugh and fail for him, but at this point when he tries, he's just so inhumanely off- kinda like an uncanny valley.
3. I think Book Voldemort and Movie Voldemort are extremely different in such fundamental ways. Book is an almost etheral wraith-like creature, more akin to sauron as a concept of evil then a foe one can fight. Movie I think makes him seem like someone drunk on his power, dismissive of everything and his fear comes from the fact that no one knows what could set him off (and that would mean death) where I can see Book voldy being more collected and most likely wouldn't kill his own with such ease.
I like them both, but I confess I have come to like movie voldy more- I know, blasphemy. While Book is *chief's kiss* in all aspects, I do like how human he is in the movies because it kinda feel to me like he's trying to present himself as this dark lord of unquestionable power, but it not working, and he's become too unstable. He feels like a real psychopath to me, where as the book he's more of a wraith and that's the point. I think the inhumanity of his human factor works for me in a strange way, how wrong he feels, and how pathetic he is when you look past his dark lord persona- which is the tragedy of his wasted life.
This has been my ted talks. Great video
Thanks very much! Regarding your points:
1. I do see where you're coming from. I think a more physically active Voldemort could have still been good if they'd toned him down a bit and also still kept away from him physically fighting people. The best adult Voldemort scene is in the Goblet of Fire right after his resurrection, but I think it went downhill from there.
2. I guess this comes down to what kind of emotion do we want to evoke in the readers/audience? For me, I don't like that awkwardness because I want Voldemort to be menacing and intimidating to the audience, rather than something we pity for or laugh at.
3. Yeah completely agree with this.
Thanks for sharing your view, some pretty interesting points and I definitely see where you're coming from!
Muggle-born: Only seen the films.
Half-Blood: Only seen the books.
Pure-Blood: Seen both the film and the movies.
Muggle: Never read or seen anything related to the franchise.
Squib: Only seen the spin offs.