Garrick Ollivander[]
You forgot, that Ollivander tells to HP in 7th book, that Voldemort used on him Cruciatus. He told to HP, that he isn't able to realize the pain. Answer he received was something like: I am able to realize this really well... Sorry for my bad English ;-)
--89.24.5.51 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)RadagastCZ
i guesss u r right —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parth Ajmera (talk • contribs).
oh yeah —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingvegeta08 (talk • contribs).
A few things[]
Is the curse really as painful as they say it is. Is it even anywhere close to being stabbed with one thousand white hot knives?
Also how long were Hermione and Harry and Alice and Frank Longbottom tortured for? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.27.36.231 (talk • contribs).
- We have no evidence that the curse is less than torturous. Considering that the Longbottoms were driven insane, they were most likely repeated cursed for a long time. Bella only cursed Hermione with it off and on for, I don't know, ten minutes, max. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 18:20, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
- How long were Michael Corner, Neville Longbottom, and other students tortured for. Also, does it say how long the Longbottoms were tortured for? 75.27.36.231 13:41, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
- How long was Harry Potter tortured for? 75.27.36.231 13:41, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
- There's no way to really know how long the students were tortured for unless JKR comes out in an interview and tells us, but considering the only students who would have been at school that year were pure or half bloods (keeping in mind Neville's comment about the DE's not wanting to spill too much "pure" blood), I doubt they wouldn't have tortured anyone to the point of death or into a catatonic state like the longbottom's. Also much of the time it was student's carrying out the detentions/cruciatus curse, so it may be that because they were still young and the cruciatus curse is powerful magic that they wouldn't have been able to perform it with as much power as an adult wizard. --BachLynn23 13:57, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Prolonged affects?[]
I'm just wondering what the prolonged affects to the curse would be. That much pain and stress on the body, for that long would have to leave some permant marks. I'm thinking things like poor joints, trouble sleeping, maybe even partial to full paralysis. I'd love to hear other people's take on this.
Artemis Black 18:57, October 2, 2010 (UTC) A. Black.
Well we already know what happens in the case of extreme prolonged use in the case of the Longbottoms. --BachLynn(Accio!) 19:28, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how Draco, not wanting to use this curse on the othe Death Eaters, was able to, because, as Bella said so, you have to mean it to cast it successfully.
Crucio -- BLOCKED?[]
Can Crucio be blocked - i.e. by protego or another spell?
I didn't think so - but in HBP Snape seems to parry Harry's cruciatus curse pretty easily.
212.219.203.82 12:57, March 8, 2011 (UTC)Will212.219.203.82 12:57, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure the Cruciatus Curse can be blocked; Moody only ever says that the Killing Curse can't be blocked. Also, you're right, Snape does manage to parry Harry's curse fairly easily, so all in all I'd say yes. james (talk) 17:03, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
Defense by Interruption[]
Is there anything that indicates that incapacitating (especially stunning or killing) the caster won't release the spell? Couldn't an especially strong-willed individual theoretically (albeit with great difficulty) retaliate against their attacker? The wording of the Defense section doesn't seem to specify, and I'd think that throwing something in there that knocking the caster unconscious or killing them could be presumed to release the victim wouldn't break anything. Seems logical if nothing else as supposedly both Cruciatus and Imperious do seem to require significant focus and concentration. 71.219.146.117 20:29, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the Cruciatus Curse is designed to be the most effective means of torture possible-- causing pain throughout the victim's entire body, so it seems to me that even the most strong-willed individual would be hard-pressed to resist. There's another possibility though-- how about if somebody else did either of those things? Still, seeing as we don't know anything either way, it seems to me it would be better not to speculate. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:27, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
Reply to RW98 - Cruciatus Curse[]
- Content on the wiki also should be written in the past tense, if you weren't prior aware. It really isn't ideal to restore present tense commentary after it was removed or altered and not alter it yourself to fit the past tense policy.
If past tense is really the issue, then just fix it without using it as a go-to justification for reverting who knows how many edits in their entirety. Because you do do that, you know.
- The film only shows the curse being cast briefly and it's known people can hurt after the spell is cast,
That is not accurate.
- "Voldemort moved slowly forward and turned to face Harry. He raised his wand.
- 'Crucio!'
- It was pain beyond anything Harry had ever experienced; his very bones were on fire; his head was
surely splitting along his scar; his eyes were rolling madly in his head; he wanted it to end...to black out...to die...
- And then it was gone. He was hanging limply in the ropes binding him to the headstone of
Voldemort's father, looking up into those bright red eyes through a kind of mist. The night was ringing with the sound of the Death Eaters' laughter."
- ...
- Voldemort raised his wand, and before Harry could do anything to defend himself, before he could
even move, he had been hit again by the Cruciatus Curse. The pain was so intense, so all-consuming, that he no longer knew where he was....White-hot knives were piercing every inch of his skin, his head was surely going to burst with pain, he was screaming more loudly than he'd ever screamed in his life - And then it stopped.
- Which is likely why Santos appeared to heal Jacob with a spell. You can't cast a spell without even casting it, it's just the effects still lasting when it was cast. Crucio still hurts after it was used, which is nothing new really.
- There are a passing mention of Harry aching a bit and at one point shaking as an after effect, but that is after he was subjected to a consistently sustained Cruciatus Curse multiple times. In Jacob's case, however, he was hit by the curse by Grindelwald and left writhing on the ground until Santos intervened. There was no "healing" going on, if you noticed, the movie even visually showed us the curse being continuing to inflict pain on him by draining the colours from his skin up until the moment where Santos lifted the curse off him, at which point he instantly regained the colour in his face, panting and no longer being actively inflicted pain upon by the curse.
- Also, if you want to restore bits of information to an article, why not just add those specific bits back, rather than reverting to an old revision and then undo loads of unrelated, useful edits, like changes to reference names or tense alterations?
If you want to make edits concerning changes to reference names and tense alterations, why not just do that instead of counterproductively reverting or removing half a paragraph of text and require me to restore that text? Why on Earth would you remove it and expect me to restore it afterwards in the first place, if you really think said bits of information is so unproblematic that you have no qualms about me restoring them?
- I find it really disruptive which is why I avoid it completely, like no other changes were even considered for minor petty reasons.
Welcome to my world. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Brace yourselves, folks. This is going to be groundbreaking.
- I fully agree with WeaseleyIsOurKing89. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 19:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:'D WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Congratulations- no reference to the SOD screenplay has even been used to back up what is seen in the film. Neither of you know the spell was still being cast and it just appears that Santos made his pain disappear. If somehow she officially lifted it, it would need clarifying in text. Her spell is also unidentified so it can't definitely be said what it was. Plus, what exactly is "groundbreaking"? RedWizard98 (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I said 'groundbreaking' in jest, about the fact that I finally agreed with WIOK on something. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 19:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
No reference to the SOD screenplay has even been used to back up what is seen in the film because the film and the screenplay are two different things, and there are variations between them. Example: David Yates shot a scene where Torquil Travers and the other Ministry officials apparated onto the school grounds; which would've been a plot hole, since one can't apparate and disapparate on school grounds. The script solves this by clarifying that the way Rowling wrote it, "An ominous procession of AURORS marches up the drive toward the castle", with "the drive" being short for "driveway", and the "driveway" of Hogwarts being the Entrance footpath, meaning that the Aurors entered by way of the front gates. Another, more similar example is the climax of the film.
In the fight in the Lestrange Mausoleum, in the film adaptation, Grindelwald's flames are blue, and in the script they're black. Now, in this example, the script specifically contradicts the depiction of the spell in the film. In this example, however, it does not: Here's what I wrote in the edit I made:
- "It would also appear that there were two different ways to cast it. When Lord Voldemort used it against Harry Potter at his rebirth in Little Hangleton graveyard, for example, he would consistently maintain its effect by keeping his wand fixed on Harry, which left him momentarily writhing on the ground whilst feeling like "his very bones was on fire", screaming, until Voldemort raised his wand and thus broke it off. When Gellert Grindelwald used it against Jacob Kowalski in 1932, however, rather than actively keeping his wand on him to maintain the Cruciatus Curse, and rather than causing Jacob such pain that he screamed, he by contrast appeared to simply place it on him by casting it once before directing his attention to the crowd, which affected Jacob in bursts of lesser pain on regular intervals until it was lifted"
This description of what the film scene depicts does not conflict with what the script says, it merely pads it with more nuance. And it's not as though we don't see similar things with spells in canon. When spells are cast more crudely, it's a simple wave of the wand at the caster, but when you want to cast it well, or to obtain a more sophisticated result, it takes concentration and one's wand being fixed on the subject of the spell. Let's take the Confundus Charm, where it is even pointed out on the page as an example: To merely bamboozle somebody by making them befuddled, cast it ones, (i.e. Newt), for more specific outcomes, like Snape did in book 7 to Mundungus, one needs to fix ones wand onto the subject of the spell and concentrate on the desired effect. The Memory Charm is another example: The caster can wipe the memory of a person, like Gilderoy Lockhart tried to do to Harry and ended up doing to himself in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, when he "raised Ron’s Spellotaped wand high over his head", something that's done when you're about to let your arm fall with the wand aimed at the target of a spell in a simple casting, but when that Obliviator modified the memory of Roberts in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, he was "pointing his wand at Mr. Roberts", and was not stated to have lowered or pocketed right away, we just get a description of how Robert's symptoms of memory modification manifested, and that the Obliviator accompanied Arthur out of earshot from the Muggle before complaining about how much work there was with "keeping him happy".
Point is: If you can choose how much of a person's memory you erase with the Memory Charm, and you can choose in what way you Confound somebody with the Confundus Charm, why can't the same be true of the Cruciatus Curse? Yes; you "need to really want to cause pain — to enjoy it —", but once you have cast it successfully, why shouldn't the caster have a degree of control over the pain they inflict with it? Voldemort's focus was on torturing Harry when casting his spell, Grindelwald, meanwhile, had his focus split between wanting to cause Jacob pain, and making an example out of him in front of a public audience. The curse is in effect, torturing him, but it's not actively being fuelled by Grindelwald's desire to cause Jacob pain, as he takes his focus away from Jacob and starts to address the crowd. And since you used Merula as an example earlier: Is it just me, or is Rakepick's Cruciatus Curse in effect throughout, but between her deflection of spells from the students, she keeps "applying pressure" with her wand by pointing it at her in between monologuing and deflecting spells?
(Also, PS: You said that one is in pain after the curse is lifted, you know, Harry shaking and so on - no, it's not that pain is an after effect, it's that being in that kind of pain takes a toll, so after a while, it'll leave you exhausted - it's sort of like if someone tickles you. If they do it for only a little while, the second they stop, you stop laughing, but if they keep at it for a bit, when they stop, you'll be out of breath, but the tickling has stopped. It's sort of like that, just with pain.) WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)