Well, if the final movie is anything to go by, then it shouldn’t be. Harry breaks the Elder Wand into pieces at the end of the film, which shows that the Deathly Hallows clearly aren’t indestructible. (In the book, Harry returns the wand to Dumbledore’s grave instead of destroying it, which doesn’t tell us anything about whether he could have destroyed the wand.)
HP:MoR does imply however that one needs extra-special power to destroy artifacts—e.g. the FiendFyre which in canon is one of the few things that can destroy a Horcrux, is also mentioned (not by name, but implicitly as a type of cursed fire) in HP:MOR by Quirrel as what would be used to destroy an artifact like the Sorting Hat.
So I don’t think Harry just snapping the Elder Wand in two could happen in the ’verse of HP:MoR.
Possibly the reason he could destroy the wand was that he was its ‘master,’ (for those who don’t know a large plot point in the final canon book and movie was that wands have particular masters that they are bonded too, and so can only be wielded fully by them or someone who defeats them. Hence why Voldemort couldn’t use the elder wand properly. )
Presumably having access to all the wands power as harry did at the end would allow one to override the safeguards against destroying it?
Harry breaks the Elder Wand into pieces at the end of the film
Gah? Seriously? WTF did they change that? That’s arbitrary.
I somehow lost interest in the movies after about 3 or so. Not sure why. Possibly because Ginny wasn’t nearly as cute or as sane as in the books and possibly because I just didn’t want to see Ron’s face or hear him say stupid, stupid things.
Well I suppose destroying it is possibly less insane than leaving it with Dumbledore where anyone would look. Just not as sane as keeping it, being badass and cough “optimising” the world.
Gah? Seriously? WTF did they change that? That’s arbitrary.
Because he wanted nobody else to have it, and frankly the book solution of “I’ll hide it, and hope nobody finds it again” was extremely inadequate; especially after dozens of people had heard Voldemort and Harry discuss its existence.
The movie version of snapping it in two and throwing it away made the point much louder and much more finally.
They, not he. The changes to the magical world regarding the casual destruction of magical artifacts are far more significant to changes to irrational!Harry’s decision making.
“I’ll hide it, and hope nobody finds it again” was extremely inadequate; especially after dozens of people had heard Voldemort and Harry discuss its existence.
The changes to the magical world regarding the casual destruction of magical artifacts are far more significant to changes to irrational!Harry’s decision making.
The concept of “artifact” isn’t nearly as neatly delineated in Harry Potter canon as in the MoR!Verse.
In canon, it’s Horcruxes that are very hard to destroy—other magical objects not necessarily so. I don’t believe there’s anything even in canon that would have prevented Harry from snapping the Elder Wand in two.
While never being explicitly discussed either way casual destruction of artifacts as powerful as the deathly hallows doesn’t happen in Harry Potter. It occurring in the movies is something new and I am comfortable with my initial reaction of surprise and disappointment. I hope MoR doesn’t base its own magical reality on the one evidently depicted in the movies because it just wouldn’t be either as appealing or as coherent.
I hope MoR doesn’t base its own magical reality on the one evidently depicted in the movies because it just wouldn’t be either as appealing or as coherent.
As I mentioned in another comment, in the MoRVerse it’s strongly implied that all artifacts (which as I said are more clearly categorized as such in MoR than in canon) have some extra durability in them (as Quirrel says the FiendFyre would be used to destroy an artifact like the Sorting Hat) -- so I don’t think you need worry about this.
What’s wrong with having powerful objects that are easy to destroy? I mean most advanced pieces of technology in our world aren’t that hard to destroy, or at least render inoperable.
Is the cloak of invisiblity one of the devices that would stand up to a nuclear weapon?
Well, if the final movie is anything to go by, then it shouldn’t be. Harry breaks the Elder Wand into pieces at the end of the film, which shows that the Deathly Hallows clearly aren’t indestructible. (In the book, Harry returns the wand to Dumbledore’s grave instead of destroying it, which doesn’t tell us anything about whether he could have destroyed the wand.)
HP:MoR does imply however that one needs extra-special power to destroy artifacts—e.g. the FiendFyre which in canon is one of the few things that can destroy a Horcrux, is also mentioned (not by name, but implicitly as a type of cursed fire) in HP:MOR by Quirrel as what would be used to destroy an artifact like the Sorting Hat.
So I don’t think Harry just snapping the Elder Wand in two could happen in the ’verse of HP:MoR.
It really shouldn’t have been allowed even in the movie. (NB: I haven’t seen the movie; I’m only relying on CronoDAS’s description.)
Possibly the reason he could destroy the wand was that he was its ‘master,’ (for those who don’t know a large plot point in the final canon book and movie was that wands have particular masters that they are bonded too, and so can only be wielded fully by them or someone who defeats them. Hence why Voldemort couldn’t use the elder wand properly. )
Presumably having access to all the wands power as harry did at the end would allow one to override the safeguards against destroying it?
Gah? Seriously? WTF did they change that? That’s arbitrary.
I somehow lost interest in the movies after about 3 or so. Not sure why. Possibly because Ginny wasn’t nearly as cute or as sane as in the books and possibly because I just didn’t want to see Ron’s face or hear him say stupid, stupid things.
Well I suppose destroying it is possibly less insane than leaving it with Dumbledore where anyone would look. Just not as sane as keeping it, being badass and cough “optimising” the world.
Because he wanted nobody else to have it, and frankly the book solution of “I’ll hide it, and hope nobody finds it again” was extremely inadequate; especially after dozens of people had heard Voldemort and Harry discuss its existence.
The movie version of snapping it in two and throwing it away made the point much louder and much more finally.
They, not he. The changes to the magical world regarding the casual destruction of magical artifacts are far more significant to changes to irrational!Harry’s decision making.
(See third paragraph.)
The concept of “artifact” isn’t nearly as neatly delineated in Harry Potter canon as in the MoR!Verse.
In canon, it’s Horcruxes that are very hard to destroy—other magical objects not necessarily so. I don’t believe there’s anything even in canon that would have prevented Harry from snapping the Elder Wand in two.
While never being explicitly discussed either way casual destruction of artifacts as powerful as the deathly hallows doesn’t happen in Harry Potter. It occurring in the movies is something new and I am comfortable with my initial reaction of surprise and disappointment. I hope MoR doesn’t base its own magical reality on the one evidently depicted in the movies because it just wouldn’t be either as appealing or as coherent.
As I mentioned in another comment, in the MoRVerse it’s strongly implied that all artifacts (which as I said are more clearly categorized as such in MoR than in canon) have some extra durability in them (as Quirrel says the FiendFyre would be used to destroy an artifact like the Sorting Hat) -- so I don’t think you need worry about this.
What’s wrong with having powerful objects that are easy to destroy? I mean most advanced pieces of technology in our world aren’t that hard to destroy, or at least render inoperable.
Personal preference and internal consistency. It’s ok if the elder wand is just a stick but I don’t have to like it.