Potter Parents. Hit me like a bombshell. Why can some pictures talk and others can't?.. the painting interact, the photos just move
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

Potter Parents

Hit me like a bombshell.

Why can some pictures talk and others can't?

+486
Views: 22462
Favorited: 18
Submitted: 04/28/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to littleirish Subscribe to feels E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(59):

[ 59 comments ]
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
0
#61 - aahrg has deleted their comment [-]
#60 - Neverknewme (05/28/2013) [-]
A big part of the ending of Harry Potter was not being afraid of death and not to linger on the dead. Remember he threw away the resurrection stone after he used it to talk to his loved ones.
#59 - whipscorpion (05/03/2013) [-]
I won't point out that photographs and paintings are different, since everyone else already is.
I will, however, beg the question: why doesn't Harry just have a portrait made of his parents so he can talk to them?
#62 to #59 - xardian (07/15/2013) [-]
cause people on paintings are imagined and so not the real persons wich they appear to be... so he'd just have some people looking like his parents but with the character the painter would've given them...
#45 - mahneke (04/29/2013) [-]
MFW desc.
#42 - saurumonthegreat (04/29/2013) [-]
Only the paintings can talk, regular pictures just move.
Its simple, think back.. Out of all of the talking ones, they are all in hogwarts, or likewise with Phineas Nigellus, other paintings outside of hogwarts.

But absolutely zero pictures talk.. just move around or do the same thing each and every day.

:)
#39 - paradoxpoetic (04/29/2013) [-]
Portrait vs Picture
User avatar #38 - feistyoneyouare (04/29/2013) [-]
The pictures in Hogwarts are enchanted paintings, the photograph of Harry's parents is just a magic photograph, on magic paper, like a .gif but on paper
#35 - wraymanr (04/29/2013) [-]
They could if they wanted, they just choose to ignore him
#43 to #35 - prettyfire (04/29/2013) [-]
a photo is different from a painting. Paintings are even more magical than photos, because paintings can move between pictures and have consciousnesses, while a photo is just capturing the emotion and action of one moment.
#37 to #35 - scotlandspie (04/29/2013) [-]
it's not true, it can't be
it's not true, it can't be
User avatar #33 - eraq (04/29/2013) [-]
BECAUSE THEY'RE DEAD!
User avatar #31 - dederplaol (04/29/2013) [-]
a photograph is like a small video of what happened, it captures the emotion and it plays like a .gif
I guess the portrait's are a clone of you able to move between other portraits
User avatar #30 - lorddarkskull (04/29/2013) [-]
a portrait is magic that captures their personality, a picture is pretty much a printed gif
User avatar #29 - traveltech (04/29/2013) [-]
I think there's some fundamental difference between the portraits and photographs. Where portraits tend to act like individuals, photographs always seem less sentient and just sort of acted out the moment again and again
#28 - mussyo (04/29/2013) [-]
Cos Voldemort and ****
User avatar #27 - generaljosh (04/29/2013) [-]
Because of the billion other plot holes found in the Potter universe?
#57 to #27 - saxong (04/30/2013) [-]
You do realize that you're getting pissed about plotholes in what was, essentially, an epic bedtime story, right?
User avatar #58 to #57 - generaljosh (04/30/2013) [-]
I'm not pissed about it. It's one of my favorite series of all time. I'm just pointing out that it's not the best thing to look for plot holes in, because the Potter universe just does not follow conventional logic, nor does it take anything to it's logical extremes.

Not saying that's a bad thing, it's just a thing.
#44 to #27 - lazragoon (04/29/2013) [-]
name 3
name 3
User avatar #46 to #44 - dwraith (04/29/2013) [-]
1) Time turners man... used to help a girl do extra schoolwork, but not to do important **** ?

2) Why do the Death Eaters use anything other than the killing curse? Unblockable one-hit kill?

3) Why are the Weasley's poor? Look at what the ******* magic can do. It discards the laws of physics, and that ************* **** they do can make just about anything. The Weasley's are clearly not unskilled at magic.
#48 to #46 - Neodude (04/29/2013) [-]
1) Time Turners were only to be used in any event that they knew could be controlled fully so as not to alter timelines, thus no going back and ********* anyone, as there would be no way to predict what could happen.

2) There are an ass-tonne more killing curses then just Avada Kedavra, but they death eaters weren't for the destruction of wizards, so in fighting they would really only try to maim or seriously injure. They would always use it on muggles.

3)What would they do, magically create the coins? Magically create the gold for the coins? Remember what Dumbldore said in the cave with Harry before the lockets chamber, that magic leaves traces. He detected it decades after it had been cast. I am fairly sure that not only would enchantments be in place to prevent making just coins, but that most wizards could detect simple transfiguration spells to make something into gold.
#47 to #46 - lazragoon (04/29/2013) [-]
1) Time Turners - Hermione's use of the time turner was closely monitored by Professor McGonnagal, who will allow no shenanigans.  Also one spin only takes you back about and hour and a half, y'know how long it would take to do anything important. They are also rendered useless after the 5th book.    
   
2) Well of course they want Harry alive,  they use it quite frequently on anyone but Harry.  But as Dumbledore demonstrates with a statue in the 5th book, you can defend yourself with something else.   
   
3) Hermione mentions the transfigurations laws throughout the books, you can't make food or water out of nothing.  I'd imagine if they went to such great lengths to make that magically true, they'd probably do something about conjuring money.  Also, not all the Weasley's are poor, technically only Mr. and Mrs. Weasley.  Bill and Fleur survive quite comfortably, as do Fred and George, Percy, and Charlie.
1) Time Turners - Hermione's use of the time turner was closely monitored by Professor McGonnagal, who will allow no shenanigans. Also one spin only takes you back about and hour and a half, y'know how long it would take to do anything important. They are also rendered useless after the 5th book.

2) Well of course they want Harry alive, they use it quite frequently on anyone but Harry. But as Dumbledore demonstrates with a statue in the 5th book, you can defend yourself with something else.

3) Hermione mentions the transfigurations laws throughout the books, you can't make food or water out of nothing. I'd imagine if they went to such great lengths to make that magically true, they'd probably do something about conjuring money. Also, not all the Weasley's are poor, technically only Mr. and Mrs. Weasley. Bill and Fleur survive quite comfortably, as do Fred and George, Percy, and Charlie.
User avatar #49 to #47 - dwraith (04/29/2013) [-]
1) Oh, right, because clearly spending a few minutes spinning the thing is too much to ask for stopping major catastrophes. Someone could get a cramp.

They never state a limit on how far back you can go. At least not to my knowledge.

2) In the 5th book they could have killed the Order of the Phoenix in the Ministry if the Death Eaters had just used the killing curse. Same for the battles at Hogwarts in the 6th and 7th books.

3) But why would they have ****** stuff? Why don't they use magic to make their clothes nicer, and all the other basic stuff that shouldn't be difficult. Poverty shouldn't exist in this magical world.
#50 to #49 - lazragoon (04/29/2013) [-]
Well, the way the time turners back in time paradox solvey thingy works, even if you go back in time, everything will work out the same as it did before, it just makes a ******* more sense.

Killing curses were used in all of those battles, like I said, you can sacrifice something else or move the **** outta the way. Would you like me to list everyone that died in the Battle of Hogwarts?

The Weasley's clothes are just fine, Mrs. Weasley just prefers to make them herself, so they look like **** .
User avatar #53 to #50 - dwraith (04/29/2013) [-]
Yes, except the things turned out that way BECAUSE they went back in time to change things. It keeps a stable loop. The time travel doesn't change anything because it was already changed because of the time travel. You can't change the past because the present already includes you using the time travel.

With the killing curse, they obviously weren't using it. It clearly states that the good wizards were blocking the curses the Death Eaters threw, and the killing curse was stated to be unblockable. And the books made a pretty big deal of that badass duel between Voldemort and Dumbledore. Clearly most wizards wouldn't have the kind of skill at manipulating the environment to stop death curses like Dumbledore did.

It's also clearly stated in several places that the Weasley's buy lots of second-hand items, including clothes. I just find it highly unlikely with all the magical options that there could be such poverty. Schoolchildren are taught spells and techniques that could very easily greatly improve the Weasley's quality of life.
#56 to #53 - lazragoon (04/30/2013) [-]
Yes, but, even if they had gone back in time to stop Voldemort, nothing would change. In fact, they'd probably end up causing Lily's and James' deaths somehow.

The book also states that you need to truely feel an unforgivable curse, and although there's Belatrix, who's so insane she doesn't really have feelings, the death eaters probably don't feel strongly enough against their opponents to kill them that cruelly. A few of them could be like Regulus too, and didn't realize how far this would go.

They bought second hand robes, which Mrs. Weasley could not make herself, probably for anti-cheating reasons. And everything else required gold, including wands, books, cauldrons and ingredients.
User avatar #25 - lyuun (04/29/2013) [-]
i think the difference might be that that's a picture, and while they do move, they aren't interactive. the interactive ones, or so i believe, are "portraits", that is, not just taken with a camera or whatever. just a theory, of course.
#17 - heafi (04/29/2013) [-]
Didn't that painting of Dumbledore fall asleep and never wake up after he died? So there seem to be some problems with speaking with the dead...
#21 to #17 - vaginismus (04/29/2013) [-]
He was merely pretending. It would be weird if the portrait was moving while the subject himself was still alive. If you remember, many of the portraits in Headmaster's office pretended to sleep frequently.
User avatar #15 - tricky (04/29/2013) [-]
The people in the paintings are ghosts
#14 - tonytails (04/29/2013) [-]
PAINTINGS separately enchanted to be able to interact with people around their painting.   
the photographs could only be enchanted to be able to move in the picture. because its an actual person in the photograph, they cant interact, otherwise, the person in the picture would be able to speak to him/herself. wizarding paradox, much?
PAINTINGS separately enchanted to be able to interact with people around their painting.
the photographs could only be enchanted to be able to move in the picture. because its an actual person in the photograph, they cant interact, otherwise, the person in the picture would be able to speak to him/herself. wizarding paradox, much?
#18 to #14 - tomthehippie (04/29/2013) [-]
One slight correction; paintings only come to life after the subject of the painting dies (in the case of portraits).
#20 to #18 - vaginismus (04/29/2013) [-]
Actually that's not true. The portraits are merely enchanted to act like the people that are painted. They don't hold any kind of link to the person themselves.
#22 to #20 - tomthehippie (04/29/2013) [-]
Really? In book 7 I was under the impression that, because Albus' painting didn't start speaking until after his death that it was the same for all paintings.
#23 to #22 - vaginismus (04/29/2013) [-]
Harrypotterwikia says the following: "A portrait knows little if anything of its subject's life, and therefore could not hold a very interesting conversation about its subject[2]. The exception to this is of the portraits of Hogwarts headmasters, which are kept in a cupboard from the time of their painting, which is usually very old[1], until the subject dies[2]. The headmaster can therefore teach their portrait to act and speak like them so that they can teach their successors[2]."

Wikia also says this: "Following the death of Albus Dumbledore, his portrait was found hanging behind the chair of the Headmaster's desk, with its occupant asleep."

It would've been weird if the portrait interacted with anyone else than Dumbledore before his death. The portrait might've been asleep, or pretended to be, but it woke up only when it was found as it did not yet know of Dumbledore's death.
#13 - ganeromg (04/29/2013) [-]
Because his parents actually hates Harry, and they dont want to talk to him
User avatar #12 - thismightbesparta (04/29/2013) [-]
Probably because his parents are in a photograph if you recall the photos in the daily prophet could not interact with the reader but they still moved about
[ 59 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)