THE GAMER NEXT DOOR

Answer: Voldemort more than likely saw Lily as a valuable bargaining chip. JK Rowling revealed in an interview that Voldemort always planned on killing James (which is why his death did not count as a sacrificial love). The reason Voldemort agreed to Snape's pleas to offer Lily a chance to live, is because he rewards his followers (always at a cost, however). Voldemort likely agreed only because he probably thought he could use Lily as leverage to ensure Snape was at his mercy.

Answer: Voldemort may have only wanted to recruit James Potter, a pure-blood, but could not have done that without also recruiting Lily, a Muggle-born and James' wife. Voldemort could have disposed of Lily later, if he so chose.

raywest ★

Answer: In addition to these other answers, if Lily actually decided to join Voldemort and became loyal to him, he might have allowed her to serve him anyway. He could appreciate a skilled, useful servant. After all, Snape was half-blooded, and surely other Death Eaters were too. Voldemort himself was secretly a half-blood. Hagrid once commented on how many Pure Blood wizards are lying about their background.

Answer: Kreacher's thinking is linear and isolated. He didn't only serve Regulus, but the entire House of Black, who were Slytherins, pure-bloods, and loyal to Voldemort. Kreacher has not yet realigned his thinking, and it is Harry, his new master, whose continued kindness to him, that eventually changes his belief's and allegiance.

raywest ★

Answer: In addition, Lucius is directly responsible for the destruction of his first horcrux, the diary, for the frivolous reason of trying to discredit Arthur Weasley.

Greg Dwyer

Answer: Lucius fell out of favor with the Dark Lord after he had failed to retrieve the prophecy (about him and Harry) that was stored at the Ministry of Magic. Voldemort thereafter treated him badly, continually humiliated him, and intended to kill Draco to further punish Lucius.

raywest ★

Answer: Kreacher did not have the ability to destroy the locket horcrux which is why he believed he failed his master. Only a few magical objects (Gryffindor's sword, the basilisk fang, fiend fire, etc.) had the power to destroy a horcrux.

raywest ★

Answer: As you have pointed out, Voldemort didn't know Kreacher could apparate in and out of the cave because house elves have their own magic that wizards do not. Voldemort's arrogance led him to many oversights, this being one of them. Because Voldemort considers house elves to be nothing more than vermin, he would rather sacrifice them instead of a (to his knowledge) loyal death eater who could potentially aid him in the future.

Answer: In The Half-Blood Prince, we learned that only one wizard could cross in the boat. Kreacher is not a wizard, and Regulus is.

Answer: There was no reason other than Voldemort's cruelty was spontaneous and unpredictable, and he had no feeling for or loyalty to anyone, even those who faithfully served him. If someone even slightly displeased him, showed weakness, or failed him in any way, Voldemort would kill or horribly punish them, depending on his mood at the time. Thicknesse just happened to speak up when Voldemort was particularly displeased, resulting in his death.

raywest ★

Answer: Yes. J.K. Rowling was going to give Hermione a younger sister who was a muggle. However, by the time "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" came out, she felt that it was too late.

Answer: Because Dre has finally earned Chengs respect. The other Fighting Dragons bowed to Mr. Han because in China bowing is shown as a sign of respect as they see that he is a better teacher and a kinder master then Master Li.

Answer: Hermione heard a twig snap behind her. It was the time-traveling Hermione, who was hiding in the trees with the "other" Harry. They are waiting to steal Buckbeak in order to save him from execution. When Hermione heard the sound, she started to say, "I thought I just saw..." then abruptly stopped. She must have realised that it was her alternate self, and not wanting Harry or Ron to know, then dismissed it as being nothing.

raywest ★

Answer: They're talking about the difference between free will and fate - choosing for yourself vs. being forced to do something. Harry feels trapped by the prophecy, because he thinks it means he is obligated to fight Voldemort to the death, whether he chooses to or not. Dumbledore explains that this is not the case: while it's true that ultimately, one of them will end up killing the other, it doesn't have to be that way: Harry has a choice. It's just that, because Voldemort killed his parents and threatens everything he cares about, Harry will never be satisfied till he has destroyed Voldemort; and because Voldemort thinks Harry is a threat to him, he will never be satisfied till Harry is dead. The difference, then, is that Harry will be choosing this fate, rather than being dragged into it with no say in the matter: he has control of his own choices and his own life, and that makes "all the difference in the world."

Aerinah

Answer: Harry said "Hey, don't be like that to him." Cheng obviously said "Go!"

Answer: It was destroyed by an electrical shock when he turned around and saw Rosie fall over dead.

Phaneron ★

Answer: Keep in mind that when his parents died, Harry was left a moderately large inheritance. If memory serves, Mrs. Weasley mentions stopping at his Gringotts vault to get some money on his behalf for school supplies. So while Ron's dress robes may be a little shabby and secondhand, given how tight his family's expenses are, Harry's are nicer because his wealth allows him more wiggle room. Who Molly cares about more, or Ron's inference thereof, has got nothing to do with it.

Cubs Fan ★

Answer: I agree with what Cubs Fan said, and I want to point out that Mrs. Weasley knows what Harry's life with the Dursleys is like. She probably wanted to buy him dress robes because he is treated badly at home. Ron almost never gets new clothes because his family is poor. Harry almost never gets them because the Dursleys choose to make him wear Dudley's old clothes. They deliberately spoil Dudley and neglect Harry.

Answer: In the books, Charlie worked with dragons in Romania, so it may have been that he was too busy and too far away to make the trip back home for Christmas. For the purpose of the movie, there is no explanation given, but it is less confusing to have fewer characters present if they serve no real purpose to the story line. Charlie Weasley has always been a minor background character.

raywest ★

Answer: It is only Ron who is blaming Hermione. He has a rather excitable nature and often is at odds with Hermione, so he has jumped to the (wrong) conclusion that it was Crookshanks who must have killed Scabbers. Hermione was rightly criticized for being a bit insensitive towards Ron, which also infuriated him.

raywest ★

Answer: Crookshanks was Hermione's cat, after all. Why would Ron not blame her?

Answer: Most surmise that "one, too cowardly to return...he will pay" is Karkaroff, and "one, who I believe has left me forever...he will be killed, of course" is Severus. Voldemort did not end up killing Severus because that night he returns to Voldemort, as per Dumbledore's instructions, and explains that he's always been loyal to Voldemort by spying on Dumbledore to be privy to useful information.

Super Grover ★

Answer: He wanted Harry to work there to make it look like he supported Scimgeour and the ministry. He wanted to dispel the image that Harry was completely loyal to Dumbledore.

raywest ★

Answer: Since Harry was hanging out with Neville more (lack of Ron around), it sounds as if Neville had been driving Harry a bit up the wall, with Neville's nonstop comments about things he was finding/doing. So when Neville exclaimed aloud, "Amazing, amazing," Harry told him, "Neville, you're doing it again."

Super Grover ★

Answer: Neville had a habit of talking out loud and at length about whatever he was thinking, regardless of whether anyone around him knew the context.

raywest ★

Answer: Fudge did not know if Mr. Weasley was in contact with Dumbledore.

raywest ★

Answer: There's a plethora of reasons, as others have said. This film had a relatively large budget (projected between $200-$290 million depending on the source), but was the lowest-grossing film of the franchise, bringing in only about $700 million worldwide when it was expected to be a potential billion-dollar film. Critical reception was lukewarm at best, and fan-reception was very mixed, whereas most of the previous films were received very positively. (Even "Spider-Man 3" fared better in general with critics and fans.) Andrew Garfield was having issues with the studio and executives, and rumor has it that he was possibly going to be fired after showing signs of disrespect towards Sony. (In part because Garfield had serious issues with them for interfering with the production of both "Amazing Spider-Man" films and making demands/undermining the story to set-up future films.) There were already a lot of issues building up behind the scenes because Sony was hoping to use this film to set up about a half-dozen more sequels and spin-offs, and they panicked when it wasn't the huge hit they hoped for. Finally, talks began with Marvel/Disney after its release, and Sony opted to reboot and "share" the character with Disney so Spidey could join the MCU.

Answer: Reviews and box office returns weren't up to studio expectations. In addition, the director and Andrew Garfield both expressed not wanting to return to the series. Those, combined with talks to Marvel, resulted in the franchise stalling.

Greg Dwyer

Answer: Actually, the timeline is a bit more muddled, since serious talks with Marvel and Disney about the rights to Spider-Man didn't really take off until after this movie bellyflopped at the box office. That's when Marvel offered them the shared custody that ultimately resorted in Spider-Man:Homecoming, where it's Marvel that has the final say in the creative process.

Friso94