Is Hogwarts really as safe as people say it is? And how hard was it really for Voldemort to dispose of Harry? These are a couple of the questions Mashable's Harry Potter in 2 Minutes "TL; DW" video poses as it summarizes the films in two minutes. Not only is the animated video funny, but it also raises some interesting discussion points about the story, particularly in why it was so hard for Voldemort to kill Harry. (Yeah, we're about to clear our throats and accept some of the geek-bait here.)
Mashable's video makes a valid point from the start in exposing the claim that Hogwarts is supposed to be the safest place for Harry... except for the Basilisk in the basement, the three-headed dog upstairs, the dragons included in the Tri-wizard tournament and the escaped criminal living in the child-abusive tree on campus. Fair point. For all of its strengths, Hogwarts isn't entirely resistant to danger. They don't even get into the dangers lurking in the Dark Forrest -- ahem, Acromantulas. -- the water-dwelling magical creatures in the Black Lake, not to mention whatever dangerous plants Madam Sprout might be growing over in the greenhouses.
As if to emphasize this point, the Harry Potter Facebook page just posted this screenshot and caption...
Post by Harry Potter.
For such a safe-haven, there are a lot of hazards waiting to happen at Hogwarts.
And then the video delves into Voldemort's frequent attempts to kill Harry every school year, calling him "the Hitler of wizards," who "bumbles time and again like a Scooby-Doo villain-of-the-week." Yeah, Voldemort kind of sucked at killing Harry. And at a glance, when you factor in access to magic, and Voldemort's devoted followers, why did it take him so long and so many tries to kill one kid? Especially when he was a baby. Cut to some amusingly awkward conversation about how "there are ways" to kill a baby. Technically, there are. But also, technically maybe not, if Lily's protection extends to non-magical means of hurting Harry. Regardless, I think Voldemort's going to choose a magical method over a muggle one whenever possible. It's just his style.
As for why someone else couldn't kill Harry on Voldemort's behalf, I agree Fenrir Greyback was underutilized as a villain because he was terrifying and vicious -- just ask Bill Weasley and Lavender Brown. But this is actually kind of a crucial part of the story, and maybe it wasn't made entirely clear enough in the movies. But in the books, it all comes down to Trelawny's prophesy, which includes the words "...and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives ..." So I'm sure ego did factor in to Voldemort's choices (especially before he knew the whole prophesy), but technically, he had to be the one to kill Harry. You know, just saying.
Other funny nods include the Dursleys somehow slipping under child protective services' radar for a decade, and Snape's undying love for Lily. Also, "Emma Watson is a babe."
Mashable's humorous approach to dissecting the Harry Potter movies in "Too Long; Didn't Watch" fashion certainly applicable to other movies. It takes a similar tone as the Honest Trailers do, except with animation. Mashable has also done one for The Lord of the Rings, which you can view on the next page...
