Sauron is just a plot device. He's a character is the same vain a storm is a character. Certainly it has a way of doing things and it affects everything. But there's no personality to it. Saruman on the other hand fricking demolishes Voldemort.
I literally don't care about whatever the frick you are talking about.
I'm just saying you are moronic for putting Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings at the same level.
One is british trash for kids and the other is Lord of the Rings.
I was not that anon you first replied to. Iove Lord of the Rings but I also think that LotR has some really weak villians and indeed characters (This was somewhat intentional on Tolkien's part, but it's still an issue)
>One is british trash for kids and the other is Lord of the Rings.
Bro Lord of the Rings is british? Also the Hobbit was meant for kids.
You haven't read even read the fricking Lord of the Rings, have you? Perhaps actually know what you're talking about before trying to die defending it fool.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Hermoine that's not how you use a cum jar.
6 months ago
Anonymous
talking like a gay wont make you any less derserving of rape
I mean, Sauron isn't so much a plot device as much of the embodiment of evil. He's barely even a character.
>Also the Hobbit was meant for kids.
Honestly, the Hobbit is WAY better than Harry Potter even as a children book.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Agreed, but I found that anon dumb so I made a point of it. Also yeah Sauron was intentionally just evil dude. Although there are scenes that kind of show his thinking. Gandalf says Sauron could literally not even concieve of people trying to destroy the Ring.
Literally never occured to him because he would not think to do so. He also believes Gandalf and the Istari are an hostile invasion force from the Valar.
He's so evil it's clouded his judgement on how those who are good act. Whereas he can 100% predict those who are evil, like Saruman
6 months ago
Anonymous
Pretty much. Like I said, he's more of a force of nature than a actual character. I honestly kind of wish they had gone that route with Voldermort. But they reveal too much in the books and movies for him to work on that level. Well, that and he got owned by a baby. That's never a good look even if the idea is "It's because he's blind to his own evil".
Not particularly. He's more just a symbolic representation of everything Rowling personally dislikes, which doesn't make for an interesting character, villain or otherwise.
This.
He as a villain doesn't make any sense, his motives and the way he tries to accomplish his goals is absolutely absurd. >I want world domination with my ideology >I want to oppress all the muggles in the world >Only one person in the world can stop me, especially with the support of that one headmaster >Should I conquer America? >Invade Asia with my superior forces? >Subvert the entire continent of Africa? >No, I better concentrate the entire war effort to attack one single school in bumfrick nowhere where the one person who can beat me already awaits
What the frick Rowling?
Even Dr. Evil from Austin Powers makes more sense...
He is a good villain in the sense that he sows all the seeds of his own destruction and that basically the reason he ultimately fails is because he's obsessed with self important prophecy.
He could easily have Harry bumped off practically any time he wanted but was caught up thinking it had to be him doing it personally, which is actually the opposite. Dumbledore points out the only reason the prophecy comes true us because Voldemort persues it so hard and believes in it.
He has boatloads of power, but is hindered by his lack of vision and obsession.
The Pettigrew plot is the thing that bugs me the most outside of the whole Goblet of Fire plot to get Harry to touch a port key that could have been anything. Mostly because Pettigrew is the single most cowardly and duplicitous character in the whole series of books, yet somehow gets sorted into Gryphindor and appears to be friends with Sirius, Lupin and James for no good reason other than betraying them.
Yeah, if Rowling wanted to make a point that Gryffindors aren't necessarily good people, she could have used a character like Bellatrix, who is genuinely brave and fearless but also just completely deranged.
Yeah but also if I were in charge of the series I’d change it so that the Tom Riddle from the second book becomes corporal and became the antagonist of the series. Just a bit older than Harry still outclassing him while not addressing the power level of the original Voldemort
Book version? Yes, a little bit too incompetent maybe, but ultimately pretty threatening and works for what he is.
Movie Version? [Spoiler]DEH[/Spoiler]
It's a tough one. He should be a formidable villain but he gets utterly nerfed by Rowling at every turn. At 17 he's a charismatic, talented, highly intelligent psychopath who is well liked by the wizarding elite. He's very well equipped to infiltrate and take over the power structures of the wizarding world through conventional means when he's leaving school. Slughorn loves him, all the Slytherins love him, his supporters are comprised of the cream of British wizarding aristocracy. Yet for some reason Rowling decides that Lord Voldemort shouldn't come close to living up to the potential of Tom Riddle. She has him working at an antique shop then disappearing into the wizarding underworld. He doesn't take over the wizarding establishment, he instead becomes some criminal gang leader pushing some cartoonish genocidal ideology that alienates most of the wizarding world. He then gets Deus Ex Machinaed about 10 times by Harry Potter before dying once and for all.
He's charismatic enough that the slytherines like him, but he clearly even creeped out Slughorn to a degree. He's smart in the ways of magic and that kind of power, but doesn't seem to have real political coniving smarts. He doesn't see the wizard political sphere to be something he works his way up until he controls it, he wants to just wipe it out and make his own thing because he thinks he's that strong.
>He doesn't see the wizard political sphere to be something he works his way up until he controls it, he wants to just wipe it out and make his own thing because he thinks he's that strong.
But he isn't that strong. He can only ever lurk in the shadows while Dumbledore is alive. He has to wait until Dumbledore dies to actually make a proper play for power and he never has the balls to try and take out Dumbledore himself. He's 70+ years old when he gets to the point where Dumbledore has gotten out of his way and he only gets there because Dumbledore makes an uncharacteristic mistake by acting carelessly with one of his horcruxes.
This is one of the things that makes him a mediocre villain. He doesn't outmanoeuvre his enemies with any great genius. He gets utterly dominated by his greatest foe, lucks his way into a scenario where his greatest foe dies, brute forces his way to power over the laughably weak Ministry of Magic, then gets defeated by some kid who gets insanely lucky on his path to destroying his horcruxes. A villain like Palpatine shits all over him in terms of subtlety and genius and strategic insight.
>A villain like Palpatine shits all over him in terms of subtlety and genius and strategic insight.
To be fair, Palpatine also gets fricked over by his inability to understand goodness. But at least it kind of works since everybody, even the good characters, didn't think Darth Vader could be saved. It was Luke's own refusal to give up on him that saved the day. Voldermort got iced by a mother loving her child, a homosexual wizard, and a simp.
>Is he a good villain?
Well, no. He was a loser, and died a loser. His followers were losers, and resurrected him just so he could lose, and die a loser.
>DUDE >What if... >dude, what if the bad guy... >dude... >what if the bad guy... was LITERALLY... Hitler? >... >(whoa!) >yeah. I went there.
wow. So creative! What's next? He's going to be defeated with the power of love and friendship?
Did Voldemort need to be as arrogant as he was? He was written arrogant to such a fault that it was his downfall. The young Tom Riddle was written much better. He was intelligent, calculating, cunning, and used his charisma to win people over. While as Voldemort, he was all action and took no precautions, he was always so confident that he was the best, and people were scared of his power.
Maybe if Voldemort showed any hesitation or weakness at all, the Death Eaters would've questioned his power and turned on him. Had he kept the Tom Riddle-mindset, I dare say that he would've been unstoppable. Of course, the power of friendship, courage, and self-sacrifice is a powerful force in the Harry Potter universe, so Harry probably would've won regardless, but just with a lot more story that ultimately would've ended the same way.
>The young Tom Riddle was written much better. He was intelligent, calculating, cunning, and used his charisma to win people over. While as Voldemort, he was all action and took no precautions, he was always so confident that he was the best, and people were scared of his power.
This has been something I've thought of often. Riddle is immeasurably more impressive and capable than Voldemort ends up being. Riddle has the makings of someone who can outflank Dumbledore from the centre of the wizarding world, who can charm and cajole the people who matter into giving him the power to sideline and isolate Dumbledore (his true rival). True evil often doesn't seize power by force from the fringes, it co-opts the centre and gets everyone else to do its bidding for it.
I guess Rowling's justification for this would be that the process of creating horcruxes destroys something about you as a person. Riddle had already ripped his soul into 3 at 17. He'd probably ripped his soul into 5 by the time he left his job at Borgin and Burkes. All that seems to be left of him by the end is the foulest, most pathetic part of him. This is communicated really quite viscerally in the Kings Cross scene. The Riddle of the Diary is quite possibly the best part of his soul. It's quite possible you rub out more and more of yourself the more horcruxes you create.
i thought it was funny that voldy and the death homies were able to blitzkrieg the entire country's magical government system with apparent ease, but when they lost to a bunch of kids and some forest creatures they instantly lost all of it
>Wizarding society basically unquestioningly reverts to blood purity fascism in a matter of weeks just because the Ministry is under new management
What did Joanne mean by this?
He was alright in the second movie and the last 15 minutes of the 4th, but I feel his minions far outshine him. Bellatrix, Pettigrew, Snape, Lucius, and Draco have far more memorable personalities than le dork lord over here (don't know if he's any different in the books or has more presence)
No, he was at his best when he was a scary mystery homie people were frightened to name and didn't actually appear in his true form, just as a parasite on Squirrel and as a soul ghost in his diary.
The best villain in Harry Potter was Bellatrix and she's evil just cause she's crazy, which ends up being far more entertaining than VolDEH who is evil because he just is.
His portrayal in GoF was, he had a kind of energy and spontaneity, and joyful confidence which you really wouldn't have expected from the stereotype of a dark wizard lord. It was a great surprise and really engaging, when all the other death eaters were haughty arrogant noble types but then Voldy is running about and cackling wildly, and having the time of his life being a right bastard.
But then in the following movies the portrayal became more muted, and he went from like a mad wizard to the more serious and brooding sort, making threats and dripping with menace.
He was good when he was fun and having fun, later on he just become DEH dark lord.
He's a good villian because he doesn't hog the screen. Even if he's not on-screen the story still feels his presence. 80% of the time Harry and the gang are dealing with his followers or the ministry he has subverted rather than le epic battle between good guy and bad guy.
He's bad because his individual actions don't match up to the above. He's very good at wielding his power through his "state apparatus" so to speak. He kind of breaks his own character of being the scheming, intelligent Tom Riddle that framed Hagrid way back when by also being the "i lead from the front" leader.
He should have basically kept his distance from Harry post book 5.
But his entire character becomes obsessively fricking with Harry as soon as Harry gets to Hogwarts. Even his diary horcrux he made back before Harry was even born decided fricking with a 12 year old was more important than reincarnating.
My point was that the entire series doesn't revolve around wizarding duels where Voldemort has his superpower and Harry has his and they duke it out only for the bad guy to narrowly escape until he doesn't.
He's at his best when you don't see him imho.
JKR actually wrote a better villian which was Umbridge.
Not really. We get an inch of backstory and it just doesn't line up that much. We go from his birth to like him being 10 and basically evil. Dumbledore saw that he was gifted but basically fell for his psycho charm. Let Tom run wild in school. What happened to Tom when he wasn't at school? Those summers off, where did he go? Who did he live with? Dumbledore thought praising his abilities and giving him a magical outlet would what, make him a good person? Oh right, hes bad cuz rape baby, got it.
Terrible villain. No real character or development, his backstory is fricking terrible, he's irredeemably evil, his motives suck... there's just nothing to him. It's not a surprise that the movies go to shit after he appears. Rowling just can't develop characters for shit and Harry Potter's saving grace has always been the world and atmosphere.
DEH
SCOMINUP
SCOMINUP
SCOMINUP
SCOMINUP
kek
Not really.
Eh. Better than Sauron but that doesn't really say much
>putting Harry fricking Potter on the same level as Lord of the Rings
Sauron is just a plot device. He's a character is the same vain a storm is a character. Certainly it has a way of doing things and it affects everything. But there's no personality to it. Saruman on the other hand fricking demolishes Voldemort.
I literally don't care about whatever the frick you are talking about.
I'm just saying you are moronic for putting Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings at the same level.
One is british trash for kids and the other is Lord of the Rings.
I was not that anon you first replied to. Iove Lord of the Rings but I also think that LotR has some really weak villians and indeed characters (This was somewhat intentional on Tolkien's part, but it's still an issue)
>One is british trash for kids and the other is Lord of the Rings.
Bro Lord of the Rings is british? Also the Hobbit was meant for kids.
You deserve to get raped
You haven't read even read the fricking Lord of the Rings, have you? Perhaps actually know what you're talking about before trying to die defending it fool.
Hermoine that's not how you use a cum jar.
talking like a gay wont make you any less derserving of rape
I mean, Sauron isn't so much a plot device as much of the embodiment of evil. He's barely even a character.
>Also the Hobbit was meant for kids.
Honestly, the Hobbit is WAY better than Harry Potter even as a children book.
Agreed, but I found that anon dumb so I made a point of it. Also yeah Sauron was intentionally just evil dude. Although there are scenes that kind of show his thinking. Gandalf says Sauron could literally not even concieve of people trying to destroy the Ring.
Literally never occured to him because he would not think to do so. He also believes Gandalf and the Istari are an hostile invasion force from the Valar.
He's so evil it's clouded his judgement on how those who are good act. Whereas he can 100% predict those who are evil, like Saruman
Pretty much. Like I said, he's more of a force of nature than a actual character. I honestly kind of wish they had gone that route with Voldermort. But they reveal too much in the books and movies for him to work on that level. Well, that and he got owned by a baby. That's never a good look even if the idea is "It's because he's blind to his own evil".
sauron sucked off mutiple orcs at the same time canocially
No he didn't.
why wouldnt he? Hes evil homie
Don't get mad at me little man. Be mad at Tolkien for having zero clue on how to make compelling villains (or characters in general)
They are both books that got turned into movies. They are the same.
>my children’s books are totally different to your children’s books!!
yeah, Harry Potter is bigger
Not particularly. He's more just a symbolic representation of everything Rowling personally dislikes, which doesn't make for an interesting character, villain or otherwise.
This.
He as a villain doesn't make any sense, his motives and the way he tries to accomplish his goals is absolutely absurd.
>I want world domination with my ideology
>I want to oppress all the muggles in the world
>Only one person in the world can stop me, especially with the support of that one headmaster
>Should I conquer America?
>Invade Asia with my superior forces?
>Subvert the entire continent of Africa?
>No, I better concentrate the entire war effort to attack one single school in bumfrick nowhere where the one person who can beat me already awaits
What the frick Rowling?
Even Dr. Evil from Austin Powers makes more sense...
He is a good villain in the sense that he sows all the seeds of his own destruction and that basically the reason he ultimately fails is because he's obsessed with self important prophecy.
He could easily have Harry bumped off practically any time he wanted but was caught up thinking it had to be him doing it personally, which is actually the opposite. Dumbledore points out the only reason the prophecy comes true us because Voldemort persues it so hard and believes in it.
He has boatloads of power, but is hindered by his lack of vision and obsession.
>Austin Powers
This makes me wonder why nobody has done a parody film series of Harry Potter.
the best parts of harry potter are before he returns, so no, not particularly.
the prisoner of azkaban plot with pettigrew, sirius, and lupin is a far better story than anything involving le master dark wizard
The Pettigrew plot is the thing that bugs me the most outside of the whole Goblet of Fire plot to get Harry to touch a port key that could have been anything. Mostly because Pettigrew is the single most cowardly and duplicitous character in the whole series of books, yet somehow gets sorted into Gryphindor and appears to be friends with Sirius, Lupin and James for no good reason other than betraying them.
Yeah, if Rowling wanted to make a point that Gryffindors aren't necessarily good people, she could have used a character like Bellatrix, who is genuinely brave and fearless but also just completely deranged.
Didn't Harry show that the hat can be hacked by saying "Not (insert House)"
You have to have the balls to tell the hat to frick off when it's passing judgement, no chance wormtail could do that
Yeah but also if I were in charge of the series I’d change it so that the Tom Riddle from the second book becomes corporal and became the antagonist of the series. Just a bit older than Harry still outclassing him while not addressing the power level of the original Voldemort
what happens when the og voldemort returns?
Thomas Riddleston
He's pretty weak, but because he's the main villain for 8 movies people grew to like him.
Who noes?
Book version? Yes, a little bit too incompetent maybe, but ultimately pretty threatening and works for what he is.
Movie Version? [Spoiler]DEH[/Spoiler]
TALK ABOUT INCOMPETENCE
he's no magneto, filthy goy nearly broke him
yes
Ralph Fiennes chewing the scenery and hamming it up with that autistic babbling and funny noises is most of the reason any likes this character
He should've been played by Bruce Payne. Fiennes just isn't menacing and snakelike enough.
It's a tough one. He should be a formidable villain but he gets utterly nerfed by Rowling at every turn. At 17 he's a charismatic, talented, highly intelligent psychopath who is well liked by the wizarding elite. He's very well equipped to infiltrate and take over the power structures of the wizarding world through conventional means when he's leaving school. Slughorn loves him, all the Slytherins love him, his supporters are comprised of the cream of British wizarding aristocracy. Yet for some reason Rowling decides that Lord Voldemort shouldn't come close to living up to the potential of Tom Riddle. She has him working at an antique shop then disappearing into the wizarding underworld. He doesn't take over the wizarding establishment, he instead becomes some criminal gang leader pushing some cartoonish genocidal ideology that alienates most of the wizarding world. He then gets Deus Ex Machinaed about 10 times by Harry Potter before dying once and for all.
He's charismatic enough that the slytherines like him, but he clearly even creeped out Slughorn to a degree. He's smart in the ways of magic and that kind of power, but doesn't seem to have real political coniving smarts. He doesn't see the wizard political sphere to be something he works his way up until he controls it, he wants to just wipe it out and make his own thing because he thinks he's that strong.
>He doesn't see the wizard political sphere to be something he works his way up until he controls it, he wants to just wipe it out and make his own thing because he thinks he's that strong.
But he isn't that strong. He can only ever lurk in the shadows while Dumbledore is alive. He has to wait until Dumbledore dies to actually make a proper play for power and he never has the balls to try and take out Dumbledore himself. He's 70+ years old when he gets to the point where Dumbledore has gotten out of his way and he only gets there because Dumbledore makes an uncharacteristic mistake by acting carelessly with one of his horcruxes.
This is one of the things that makes him a mediocre villain. He doesn't outmanoeuvre his enemies with any great genius. He gets utterly dominated by his greatest foe, lucks his way into a scenario where his greatest foe dies, brute forces his way to power over the laughably weak Ministry of Magic, then gets defeated by some kid who gets insanely lucky on his path to destroying his horcruxes. A villain like Palpatine shits all over him in terms of subtlety and genius and strategic insight.
>A villain like Palpatine shits all over him in terms of subtlety and genius and strategic insight.
To be fair, Palpatine also gets fricked over by his inability to understand goodness. But at least it kind of works since everybody, even the good characters, didn't think Darth Vader could be saved. It was Luke's own refusal to give up on him that saved the day. Voldermort got iced by a mother loving her child, a homosexual wizard, and a simp.
he's not a villain at all
Nah, series pretty much goes to crap after he appears.
oi voldy, we got a new spell for you right here you no-nosed frick
>Is he a good villain?
Well, no. He was a loser, and died a loser. His followers were losers, and resurrected him just so he could lose, and die a loser.
Ralph Fiennes did a fricking amazing job with the material he was given
>HARRY POTTER IS GAY
>DEEEEH HEH HEEEEEH
I was kinda let down that his entire plan was just so he could call Harry a homosexual in front of everyone. I thought he dreamed bigger.
That's a big dream
what a homophobe
No. Vague goals. Vague plots. He’d be a mustache twirler if he had one.
I really liked him in the book, but that was just because he had some banger lines.
"I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost . . . but still, I was alive"
He was having a blast in Goblet of Fire. Playing a few pranks after being reborn (Maybe that accounts for his terrible decisions)
I liked him better when he was a schoolboy Hannibal Lecter.
No. He isn't threatening enough to work as a actual embodiment of evil nor is he complex enough to work as a character in his own right.
Marisa Kirisame would solo Voldemort.
>DUDE
>What if...
>dude, what if the bad guy...
>dude...
>what if the bad guy... was LITERALLY... Hitler?
>...
>(whoa!)
>yeah. I went there.
wow. So creative! What's next? He's going to be defeated with the power of love and friendship?
Nope.
He knew about muggletech so he should've known about guns and just shot harry the second time he tried to kill him.
Did Voldemort need to be as arrogant as he was? He was written arrogant to such a fault that it was his downfall. The young Tom Riddle was written much better. He was intelligent, calculating, cunning, and used his charisma to win people over. While as Voldemort, he was all action and took no precautions, he was always so confident that he was the best, and people were scared of his power.
Maybe if Voldemort showed any hesitation or weakness at all, the Death Eaters would've questioned his power and turned on him. Had he kept the Tom Riddle-mindset, I dare say that he would've been unstoppable. Of course, the power of friendship, courage, and self-sacrifice is a powerful force in the Harry Potter universe, so Harry probably would've won regardless, but just with a lot more story that ultimately would've ended the same way.
>Did Voldemort need to be as arrogant as he was?
Yes, because Voldermort is mostly just a strawman. All of the villains in Harry Potter are strawman.
>The young Tom Riddle was written much better. He was intelligent, calculating, cunning, and used his charisma to win people over. While as Voldemort, he was all action and took no precautions, he was always so confident that he was the best, and people were scared of his power.
This has been something I've thought of often. Riddle is immeasurably more impressive and capable than Voldemort ends up being. Riddle has the makings of someone who can outflank Dumbledore from the centre of the wizarding world, who can charm and cajole the people who matter into giving him the power to sideline and isolate Dumbledore (his true rival). True evil often doesn't seize power by force from the fringes, it co-opts the centre and gets everyone else to do its bidding for it.
I guess Rowling's justification for this would be that the process of creating horcruxes destroys something about you as a person. Riddle had already ripped his soul into 3 at 17. He'd probably ripped his soul into 5 by the time he left his job at Borgin and Burkes. All that seems to be left of him by the end is the foulest, most pathetic part of him. This is communicated really quite viscerally in the Kings Cross scene. The Riddle of the Diary is quite possibly the best part of his soul. It's quite possible you rub out more and more of yourself the more horcruxes you create.
>starts ripping his soul at 17
>progressively gets more moronic as he does it
Was it all a metaphor for weed?
He can't even break into a school and beat some kids in a battle
No, but he's still a memorable and rather iconic one. Peaked with his return in Goblet.
the only really interesting part about voldemort is his past, which im not too sure if the movie showed much
i thought it was funny that voldy and the death homies were able to blitzkrieg the entire country's magical government system with apparent ease, but when they lost to a bunch of kids and some forest creatures they instantly lost all of it
>Wizarding society basically unquestioningly reverts to blood purity fascism in a matter of weeks just because the Ministry is under new management
What did Joanne mean by this?
They were already pretty much open about their blood purity obsession from book one, with all the mocking of muggles and mudbloods.
He was alright in the second movie and the last 15 minutes of the 4th, but I feel his minions far outshine him. Bellatrix, Pettigrew, Snape, Lucius, and Draco have far more memorable personalities than le dork lord over here (don't know if he's any different in the books or has more presence)
No, he was at his best when he was a scary mystery homie people were frightened to name and didn't actually appear in his true form, just as a parasite on Squirrel and as a soul ghost in his diary.
The best villain in Harry Potter was Bellatrix and she's evil just cause she's crazy, which ends up being far more entertaining than VolDEH who is evil because he just is.
in the books ya.. in the movies only the first
His portrayal in GoF was, he had a kind of energy and spontaneity, and joyful confidence which you really wouldn't have expected from the stereotype of a dark wizard lord. It was a great surprise and really engaging, when all the other death eaters were haughty arrogant noble types but then Voldy is running about and cackling wildly, and having the time of his life being a right bastard.
But then in the following movies the portrayal became more muted, and he went from like a mad wizard to the more serious and brooding sort, making threats and dripping with menace.
He was good when he was fun and having fun, later on he just become DEH dark lord.
not entirely
did he sniff his hair? lmfao
Look at how happy he is
>malfoy ends a half a step short of where he needed to be
>awkward shuffle up to complete the hug
>they still used it anyways
Yes and no.
He's a good villian because he doesn't hog the screen. Even if he's not on-screen the story still feels his presence. 80% of the time Harry and the gang are dealing with his followers or the ministry he has subverted rather than le epic battle between good guy and bad guy.
He's bad because his individual actions don't match up to the above. He's very good at wielding his power through his "state apparatus" so to speak. He kind of breaks his own character of being the scheming, intelligent Tom Riddle that framed Hagrid way back when by also being the "i lead from the front" leader.
He should have basically kept his distance from Harry post book 5.
Yeah but he got his ego hurt by Harry
But his entire character becomes obsessively fricking with Harry as soon as Harry gets to Hogwarts. Even his diary horcrux he made back before Harry was even born decided fricking with a 12 year old was more important than reincarnating.
My point was that the entire series doesn't revolve around wizarding duels where Voldemort has his superpower and Harry has his and they duke it out only for the bad guy to narrowly escape until he doesn't.
He's at his best when you don't see him imho.
JKR actually wrote a better villian which was Umbridge.
do they ever give him a motivation for being le bad?
His mom mindraped his father into fricking and that made him predisposed to becoming a sociopath
thats never mentioned in te movies
Because half blood prince is dumb and cuts voldehs past entirely for some reason
DAMN WHAT A PUSSY DOES TO A homie
>is DARK LORD MCEVILGUY a good villain?
Not really. We get an inch of backstory and it just doesn't line up that much. We go from his birth to like him being 10 and basically evil. Dumbledore saw that he was gifted but basically fell for his psycho charm. Let Tom run wild in school. What happened to Tom when he wasn't at school? Those summers off, where did he go? Who did he live with? Dumbledore thought praising his abilities and giving him a magical outlet would what, make him a good person? Oh right, hes bad cuz rape baby, got it.
MEH
Terrible villain. No real character or development, his backstory is fricking terrible, he's irredeemably evil, his motives suck... there's just nothing to him. It's not a surprise that the movies go to shit after he appears. Rowling just can't develop characters for shit and Harry Potter's saving grace has always been the world and atmosphere.