Forums: Index > The Wizengamot archive > How did voldemort become green

I'm sorry, what? Since when was Voldemort green?--Yin&Yang 08:08, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't mention him turning green, but I think it must've happened when he was pushing the boundaries of magic.

I don't think it's ever talked about Voldemort turning green. He's snake-like, sure, but he's described as being so pale that he seemed to emit a pearly glow. --Parodist 11:13, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

That's right. To the composer of the forum, I'm thinking that somewhere along the line you accidentally might have imagined Voldemort with green skin and the image stuck in your mind. I have done similar things on a number of occasions - particularly in picturing someone's hair colour differently to what is described in the books. Once I read over those parts in which I became confused about someone's appearance again, I rearrange the way I imagine the characters. I don't know if what I have just described is uncommon or not, but I think that might be where you are getting confused.--Yin&Yang 06:20, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

I think this is very valid mistake as,often Voldermorts images are green.However only the dark mark cast in the sky is green,not the dark lord himself.----Beautiful altar 13:25, October 10, 2009 (UTC)Beautiful altar

Hey Beautiful alter, I think you just reminded me of something. To the person who asked the question initially, I think that you might have taken a look at the back cover of the American version of the 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' book and saw that image of Harry raising his arm (to catch the spinning Elder Wand) while Voldemort, who does look very green, is falling backwards. Now I think I know where this confusion started from. Well, am I right? If I am, then my advise to you is to not worry about the cover, Voldemort is supposed to look whiter than a skull instead of that sickly green colour shown on that cover.--Yin&Yang 13:33, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

If that was the reason, then that's a very valid mistake. I can't believe I didn't think of that as the source of the problem, seeing as I'm American. It always bothered me that they made him green, but it didn't cross my mind that someone would take the cover seriously. Just artistic liscence, I guess. --Parodist 13:47, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Very true ! yes this is what I was referring to when I talked about the images.Like parodist, I also feel that covers should not be taken too seriously,because,even if you notice,the covers of harry potter (British version) show harry's scar in the middle between his eyebrows !--Beautiful altar 13:56, October 10, 2009 (UTC)Beautiful altar

Not to mention the British cover of the 'Goblet of Fire' where the Hungarian Horntail looks as if it has taken full flight rather than just standing up on its hind legs like it does in the actual text of the book. The smokescreen in the background doesn't help either.--Yin&Yang 14:02, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

The American versions of the Harry Potter books all have the covers showing Harry's scar between his eyebrows as well. --Parodist 14:06, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the position of Harry's scar on his forehead is never mentioned in the books so a lot of fans were a little confused after seeing the first Harry Potter film in 2001 and noticing Harry's scar slightly off-centre. That confusion probably was a result of the covers. I have to say though, my favourite Harry Potter covers are the adult editions of the British versions. You know, the ones with the black background and the images of key objects from the book (e.g. Slytherin's Locket on the front of the 'Deathly Hallows'). They have a more dramatic effect, I think.--Yin&Yang 14:12, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact location of the scar on Harry's forehead ever being mentioned the books. As for Voldemort being green, I'm guessing that the US Deathly Hallows cover, painted by Mary GrandPré, is what is being discussed. Personally, I think it's more of an ashen/grey-ish tinge, like a corpse, and that it's probably just artistic license on GrandPré's part. GrandPré draws Snape with a beard although he's never described as having one in the books (I've always pictured him with one though). Starstuff (Owl me!) 14:18, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the end I think we all agree that the covers were never really correct versions of the appearances of the characters. One thing i want to add is that actually in the first book itself,it was mentioned that it was off-center,but i think the cover designer might have over looked that.Another thing is that,i wanted to ask what is the difference between adult and normal kids version ?!--Beautiful altar 15:10, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Just the covers are different; the children's versions are more cartoonish and the adult's are like actual photographs. The text is exactly the same. --Parodist 15:38, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

well...ya thannks...