# Harry Potter franchise 20th anniversary



## dr_shadow (Nov 1, 2021)

First movie premiered this month in 2001. I'm gonna seize the occasion and finally watch all of them - I snoozed out after the third one when they were in theaters. I've read all the books though (1-4 in Swedish, 5-7 in English).

Impressions of the first one so far is that it's fun when you know *The Twist*. At the time people must have just assumed that Harry was a Gary Stu (Harry Sue?) who is naturally good at everything for no reason, but if you loop back after Book 7 you can see that there's actually a rational explanation. Now I'm wondering if Rowling had planned *The Twist *all along, or if it's just a well-executed retcon.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Nov 1, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> Impressions of the first one so far is that it's fun when you know *The Twist*. At the time people must have just assumed that Harry was a Gary Stu (Harry Sue?) who is naturally good at everything for no reason, but if you loop back after Book 7 you can see that there's actually a rational explanation. Now I'm wondering if Rowling had planned *The Twist *all along, or if it's just a well-executed retcon.



I am sorry that I need to ask, but to what "twist" are you referring? Are you referring to the prophecy from _Order of the Phoenix,_ the Horcruxes from _Half-Blood Prince,_ or the titular objects from _Deathly Hallows?_


----------



## Yasha (Nov 1, 2021)

Harry is far from being good at everything. He is full of weaknesses and flaws, which is what makes him relatable. I think the movies failed to capture even 1% of how great the books really are, except the last book, which I found very unsatisfying. The 2 horcruxes Dumbledore managed to track down happened to be the only ones well protected by Voldemort's magic. I found it odd that Voldemort would rely on others to protect his horcruxes (The Room of Requirement for the diadem and Gringotts for the cup). Understandably, if any one of them were protected by advanced magic like the locket, Harry wouldn't be able to destroy it. But having Dumbledore show how insurmountably difficult it's to retrieve a horcrux in Book 6, only to have Harry and co. breeze through all the remaining horcruxes in less than a year is anticlimactic to say the least, and kind of makes Dumbledore look dumb.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 1, 2021)

DemonDragonJ said:


> I am sorry that I need to ask, but to what "twist" are you referring? Are you referring to the prophecy from _Order of the Phoenix,_ the Horcruxes from _Half-Blood Prince,_ or the titular objects from _Deathly Hallows?_




*Spoiler*: __ 




The fact that Harry is host to a portion of Voldemort's soul, and that's why he can talk to snakes, why the companion of Voldy's wand responds to him, and why he is instantly able to summon and ride a broom. To name only examples in the first movie.

It's kind of like the twist is Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.


----------



## Yasha (Nov 1, 2021)

Pretty sure the broom riding is his natural talent and has nothing to do with the soul fragment. Only Parseltongue and shared vision are from the soul.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 1, 2021)

Also, "yup, that's 20 year old CGI." 

The quiddich scene in the first movie somehow aged worse than the pod race in The Phantom Menace (1999), even though that movie came out two years earlier. The troll also looks worse than the corresponding troll in Fellowship of the Ring (2001), from later in the same year.

Costumes and sets are good though. They shot this at Oxford University, right? At least it looks like it. I was there in 2016.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 2, 2021)

Can we talk about how all the adult magic professors pitched in to rig a series of elaborate traps to protect the Stone from Voldemort, yet not only are the traps all beaten by *three 11-year olds*, but Voldemort is already there when they get in.

Do you think the Pentagon has security this bad?


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 2, 2021)

"Guten tag, ich bin Lucius Malfoy. Hast du meines blondes Haar und meine blaue Augen gesehen?"

Man, when I was 12 I didn't catch what the obvious inspiration here was.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 2, 2021)

Even though these movies are almost 3 hours each, it sure feels like they cut a lot from the books (which I haven't read in years). Like, in the second one there is almost no set-up of Ginny, so we don't feel any distress when she gets kidnapped because we have no idea if she's likeable or not.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 2, 2021)

That awkward moment when all of the rest of the kids outgrow Harry.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Nov 2, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Harry is host to a portion of Voldemort's soul, and that's why he can talk to snakes, why the companion of Voldy's wand responds to him, and why he is instantly able to summon and ride a broom. To name only examples in the first movie.



The idea that Voldemort accidentally instilled a piece of his soul into Harry was mentioned as early as the first book, and it did give him the ability to communicate with snakes, but Harry's affinity for broomsticks and flying is his own natural talent.



dr_shadow said:


> "Guten tag, ich bin Lucius Malfoy. Hast du meines blondes Haar und meine blaue Augen gesehen?"
> 
> Man, when I was 12 I didn't catch what the obvious inspiration here was.



Will you please share that "inspiration" with other users, to whom it may not be obvious?


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 3, 2021)

DemonDragonJ said:


> Will you please share that "inspiration" with other users, to whom it may not be obvious?



The blonde and blue-eyed race hater is obviously supposed to be an unrepentant Nazi.


----------



## Skaddix (Nov 3, 2021)

Its been 20 years eh? Still remember reading this for the first time...well actually an after school person was reading it under a tree at the Quaker School I went to in first grade


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 3, 2021)

Skaddix said:


> Its been 20 years eh? Still remember reading this for the first time...well actually an after school person was reading it under a tree at the Quaker School I went to in first grade



First book 1997, first movie 2001.

*Release timeline*

1997 Book 1
1998 Book 2
1999 Book 3
2000 Book 4
2001 Movie 1
2002 Movie 2
2003 Book 5
2004 Movie 3
2005 Book 6, Movie 4
2006 - nil - 
2007 Book 7, Movie 5
2008 - nil - 
2009 Movie 6
2010 Movie 7.1
2011 Movie 7.2

Books 5-7 are appreciably longer than Books 1-4, so apparently Rowling slowed to one book every two years for those, rather than one book every year initially.

The movies unfortunately took a break in 2006 and 2008, which means that by the end the actors' ages are two years out of synch with the characters' ages. This might be a problem (haven't gotten that far yet), since teens still age fast enough that a difference of one year can be easily visible.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 3, 2021)

Forgot to write it yesterday, but apparently a 12-year old with no swordsman training can solo a 1000-year old basilisk. Largely (entirely? I forget) without using magic too.


----------



## Yasha (Nov 3, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> Forgot to write it yesterday, but apparently a 12-year old with no swordsman training can solo a 1000-year old basilisk. Largely (entirely? I forget) without using magic too.


Solo？Fawkes blinded the basilisk.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 3, 2021)

Yasha said:


> Solo？Fawkes blinded the basilisk.



Animals count as weapons. 

And in any regard, a 1000-year old baselisk that has been hyped as Slytherin's secret weapon against the Mudbloods should be able to kill a 12-year old even without eyes.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 3, 2021)

Writing-wise the convenient arrival of Fawkes with the hat is also a _deus ex machina_, by the way.


----------



## Ruthless Tsuchikage (Nov 3, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> At the time people must have just assumed that Harry was a Gary Stu (Harry Sue?) who is naturally good at everything for no reason, but if you loop back after Book 7 you can see that there's actually a rational explanation. Now I'm wondering if Rowling had planned *The Twist *all along, or if it's just a well-executed retcon.


I mean.....I never thought Harry was a Garry Stue considering he only gets by in school because Hermoine does his homework for him. Or because he spends large swats of the series getting despised. Or because aside from Defense against the Dark Arts he doesn't even seem a particularly skilled wizard. Or because he keeps surviving because Voldie's colossal stupidity and Dumbledore's brilliance collide. Or because he sometimes comes off as an unlikable brat.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 3, 2021)

Maybe I'm too influenced by RPGs, but it occurs to me that we haven't established (in the movies, at least) what determines the strength of a wizard/witch. There seems to be more to casting a spell than just pointing your wand and saying the incantation, or first-years would be going around blowing up the Moon and turning themselves into gods. But what is the "more"?

I don't expect a mana meter in the top left corner of the screen, but... something?

For example, in The Matrix, a person's ability to do superhuman feats seems to be determined by their level of "faith" - the extent to which they can convince their own mind to ignore the apparently real stimuli fed to them by the computer. That's something you can "practice", since positive reinforcement from past successful feats encourages you to have faith in your ability to pull off more impressive feats, so it makes sense that people who have been unplugged longer would (as a rule) be more powerful than newcomers.

But what it is that makes adult wizards/witches more powerful than younger ones?


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 3, 2021)

Despite these movies all being 2-3 hours long, I feel like they'd be super hard to understand if you haven't read the corresponding books, because a lot of the build-up and _especially_ character development is missing.

Like, in the last one, Harry only "talks" to the diary in *one scene*, and in this one The Grim (Sirius) just kind of shows up and we're supposed to be afraid of him. The "black dog" omen had been in two scenes before, but not made menacing enough where you'd have the kind of freak-out Ron does upon finally seeing it.


----------



## Ruthless Tsuchikage (Nov 3, 2021)

By the by. We can all agree that Voldie is a terrible villain right? Most of the time Harry only keeps surviving because Voldemort is a complete idiot.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 3, 2021)

Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> By the by. We can all agree that Voldie is a terrible villain right? Most of the time Harry only keeps surviving because Voldemort is a complete idiot.



In the first book/movie Harry also has literal plot armor, where the villain can't tough him without hurting himself.


----------



## Ruthless Tsuchikage (Nov 3, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> In the first book/movie Harry also has literal plot armor, where the villain can't tough him without hurting himself.


And once Voldie gets past that he gives Harry not literal plot armor by being an absolute failure.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 3, 2021)

I just realized Harry and Hermione (at least) are wearing Muggle clothes in this movie. Jeans and whatnot. Why is that? 

I thought wizards all wore robes while in their own "world"?

---

Sirius is just kept behind a regular door that a 13-year old can casually break open with a _bombarda_ spell? There's no magic forcefield or anything?


----------



## Garcher (Nov 3, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> Despite these movies all being 2-3 hours long, I feel like they'd be super hard to understand if you haven't read the corresponding books, because a lot of the build-up and _especially_ character development is missing.


no man, HP is easily digestible

also the movies make some massive changes, you will just notice differences


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Nov 3, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> Books 5-7 are appreciably longer than Books 1-4, so apparently Rowling slowed to one book every two years for those, rather than one book every year initially.



Book 4 is actually significantly longer than are any of the previous books; only the first three are especially short.



dr_shadow said:


> Writing-wise the convenient arrival of Fawkes with the hat is also a _deus ex machina_, by the way.



I do not think that it was, because Dumbledore explained that Fawkes was attracted by Harry's display of courage and bravery. However, Harry's wand reacting with Voldemort's wand in the fourth book was definitely a _deus ex machina,_ since, prior to that situation, there had never been anything to suggest that wands with the same core material could not be used against each other.



dr_shadow said:


> Despite these movies all being 2-3 hours long, I feel like they'd be super hard to understand if you haven't read the corresponding books, because a lot of the build-up and _especially_ character development is missing.
> 
> Like, in the last one, Harry only "talks" to the diary in *one scene*, and in this one The Grim (Sirius) just kind of shows up and we're supposed to be afraid of him. The "black dog" omen had been in two scenes before, but not made menacing enough where you'd have the kind of freak-out Ron does upon finally seeing it.



Yes, the movies omitted many crucial details from the books, which was very unfortunate.



Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> By the by. We can all agree that Voldie is a terrible villain right? Most of the time Harry only keeps surviving because Voldemort is a complete idiot.



Voldemort was not an idiot; he was arrogant, a classic villain trait, and a classic villain flaw.


----------



## Ruthless Tsuchikage (Nov 3, 2021)

DemonDragonJ said:


> Voldemort was not an idiot; he was arrogant, a classic villain trait, and a classic villain flaw.


Yeah but most villains don't let their arrogance grow to a point that it completely cripples his entire faction and allows the heroes to survive danger.....certainly more than 15 times methinks?


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Nov 3, 2021)

Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> Yeah but most villains don't let their arrogance grow to a point that it completely cripples his entire faction and allows the heroes to survive danger.....certainly more than 15 times methinks?



Perhaps J.K. Rowling did not know how to write a way for Voldemort to be defeated without making him appear to be incompetent?


----------



## Undertaker (Nov 3, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> it occurs to me that we haven't established (in the movies, at least) what determines the strength of a wizard/witch.
> ...
> But what it is that makes adult wizards/witches more powerful than younger ones?



I think the real source of power is channeled through the wand. As Ollivander said 'The wand chooses the wizard'. It's like zanpakuto in Bleach: they all have shikais and bankais, but shinigami has to get in sync with his zanpakuto to unlock them.

My headcannon is that a wizard has to be able to get into a certain concentration/mental state to cast a spell. And this mental state is different for different spells. Harry cast crucio at Bellatrix, but he didn't torture her automatically (at least in the movie).

So, adult wizards, or more powerful wizards no matter the age, has more experience and has more control over channeling certain emotions in certain spells.

The ultimate form is self-sacrifice to protect the loved ones. On the other spectrum is willingness to kill.

To get the wands in the picture I have to broaden the universe and assume that there are some primal forces like yin and yang that is in constant dynamic balance. They are the real sources of magic. The wands are different like zanpakutos and this primal forces grant certain wands to certain wizards to further their cause.
So, from a wizard point of view there is kind of unfair chance in getting a shitty wand. But in reality the wand is granted based on the wizard's character and potential/fate.

It's all just my head cannon bullshit I've made up just now trying to answer your question. 



dr_shadow said:


> it's fun when you know *The Twist*...Now I'm wondering if Rowling had planned *The Twist *all along, or if it's just a well-executed retcon.





DemonDragonJ said:


> I am sorry that I need to ask, but to what "twist" are you referring?




*Spoiler*: __ 



Voldermot is an ultimate p*d*p****. He put a lil drop of his 'essence' in a newborn baby.






DemonDragonJ said:


> Harry's wand reacting with Voldemort's wand...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 4, 2021)

Lol Death Eaters have KKK hats and torches. Subtle.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 4, 2021)

Didn't expect Harry to get sexually harrassed by a ghost.  

He's also surprisingly ripped for a guy whom we never see work out. Except quiddich, I guess, but do you need muscle to be a seeker?


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 4, 2021)

Four was the best movie so far (most coherent), but what was with that *insanely convoluted* plan to get Harry to Voldemort? If what's-his-name had already successfully infiltrated the school and disguised himself as a teacher, couldn't he have just nabbed Harry at any time instead of risking him being *incinerated by a dragon* or *drowning in the abyss*, both of which might have made his blood inaccessible for use in Voldemort's resurrection? 

Anyway, we're past the half-way point of the series and Shit Got Real. 

(Also, "Harry Stu" is now the youngest Tri-Wizard Tournament champion of all time, but seems nobody acknowledged it because of Cedric's death. I guess it was an easy feat after soloing the baselisk and apparently being completely un-traumatized by that experience)


----------



## J★J♥ (Nov 4, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> Even though these movies are almost 3 hours each, it sure feels like they cut a lot from the books (which I haven't read in years). Like, in the second one there is almost no set-up of Ginny, so we don't feel any distress when she gets kidnapped because we have no idea if she's likeable or not.


They took every good attribute Ron had and gave it to Hermione making Ron look like useless idiot.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Undertaker (Nov 4, 2021)

I watched HP movies properly around the time Half-Blood Prince movie came out. Then I read the last book like in a day.

Half-Blood Prince is my guilty pleasure. It placed in a very bad spot: between action packed Order of the Phoenix and the Finale. And I think they pulled it off - the perfect combination of humor and depression, the road to the lowest point and calm before the storm.
The only downside is that Half-Blood Prince seems like a subplot overshadowed by many other things. So, it may seem underwhelming when the title results in so little.

Radcliffe made a great portrayal of angry Harry on the edge. I like those parts. Yelling at Dumbledore. Or when he is not allowed to leave Hogwarts for a day off with everyone and he is like Fuck it.


----------



## Ruthless Tsuchikage (Nov 4, 2021)

Undertaker said:


> Radcliffe made a great portrayal of angry Harry on the edge


Caps lock Harry.


----------



## J★J♥ (Nov 4, 2021)

Did not Hermione also get romantically involved with 18/20 year old while she was 13/14 ?


----------



## MShadows (Nov 5, 2021)

I hear they’re making a remake. One of the titles is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Afghanistan.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Mider T (Nov 5, 2021)

J★J♥ said:


> Did not Hermione also get romantically involved with 18/20 year old while she was 13/14 ?


No.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 5, 2021)

J★J♥ said:


> Did not Hermione also get romantically involved with 18/20 year old while she was 13/14 ?



When she was 14 (Goblet of Fire) she was dating Bulgarian Triwizard champion Victor Krum, who was at the time a 17-year old final year student.

Ron expresses concern that "you know what he wants", and Hermione says that they don't talk much because "Victor is more of  a... physical being", but it's left unsaid if they actually *do it* or not.


----------



## Yasha (Nov 5, 2021)

J★J♥ said:


> Did not Hermione also get romantically involved with 18/20 year old while she was 13/14 ?


Girls are generally more mature than boys of the same age, and Hermione is more mature than most girls, so why not? Ron was too childish for her. I had the impression from one of JKR's interview that Hermione and Ron's marriage wasn't a very happy one. I can see grown-up Ron having drinking problem and being a loser overall and taking it out on Hermione.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 5, 2021)

Yasha said:


> I can see grown-up Ron having drinking problem and being a loser overall and taking it out on Hermione.



All in with the Irish stereotypes, eh?


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 5, 2021)

Man, Umbridge is a pretty spot-on caricature of a pre-1968 European schoolteacher.  The kind that Pink Floyd sang about in _Another Brick in the Wall_ (1979).

(The 1968 "student revolution" led to a gradual shift away from rote learning and penalism, and towards trying to make classes "interesting" and "fun" for the students)


----------



## J★J♥ (Nov 5, 2021)

Yasha said:


> Girls are generally more mature than boys of the same age, and Hermione is more mature than most girls, so why not? Ron was too childish for her. I had the impression from one of JKR's interview that Hermione and Ron's marriage wasn't a very happy one. I can see grown-up Ron having drinking problem and being a loser overall and taking it out on Hermione.


Ron was not a loser in the books. He was smarter than Hermione she was more knowledgeable. Movies changed that and even gave Hermione some of his scenes.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 5, 2021)

Yasha said:


> Girls are generally more mature than boys of the same age, and Hermione is more mature than most girls, so why not? Ron was too childish for her. I had the impression from one of JKR's interview that Hermione and Ron's marriage wasn't a very happy one. I can see grown-up Ron having drinking problem and being a loser overall and taking it out on Hermione.


 this speculation


----------



## Skaddix (Nov 5, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> Man, Umbridge is a pretty spot-on caricature of a pre-1968 European schoolteacher.  The kind that Pink Floyd sang about in _Another Brick in the Wall_ (1979).
> 
> (The 1968 "student revolution" led to a gradual shift away from rote learning and penalism, and towards trying to make classes "interesting" and "fun" for the students)



The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves...


----------



## Luffyfan38 (Nov 5, 2021)

I was just about to post a thread on this series, you beat me to it. I loved this series so much and still do. I was dissapointed with who ended up with who though in my opinion Ginny x Harry made zero sense, the other pairing at least had building and chemistry not again in my opinion this one, I have to say opinion a lot because I know shippers can be sensitive over that subject. FYI book 4 and movie 4 tied with 3 are my favorites to read and watch.


----------



## Luffyfan38 (Nov 5, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> Didn't expect Harry to get sexually harrassed by a ghost.
> 
> He's also surprisingly ripped for a guy whom we never see work out. Except quiddich, I guess, but do you need muscle to be a seeker?


Yah, it was creepy to read as it was to watch in the movie. Its even more creepy knowing the actual age of the actor playing the character.


----------



## Ruthless Tsuchikage (Nov 5, 2021)

One ''relation''(no not THAT relation!) that never made sense to me was that of Dumbledore and Harry.

In the final book a father-son relation is heavily alluded to but.....these two people hardly know each other. Book 6 was about the only book where the two spend any extensive time together. Other then that they mostly saw each other roughly twice a year and only on a professional basis. I can accept what those two represent to each other being really important to them, Dumbledore as the big good to Harry, and Harry as the chosen one for Dumbledore, but I do not buy this intensely emotional relation the two are said to have.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 5, 2021)

I had forgotten that there was an anime-style epic battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort in 5. Right on. Interesting to see how V compares to someone in his own weight class rather than a bunch of kids.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 5, 2021)

That said, I don't find V too menacing at this point. Given the physical resemblance I had kind of expected him to have the same voice and personality as Palpatine. Or even Orochimaru, if you will. But he's not as creepy as either of them.

The Potter book series started in 1997 and the Naruto manga in 1999, so it's possible that Oro   is in fact ripped off from Voldemort (or they're both ripped off from Satan), but in the other direction, the Naruto anime started in 2002 and had become an international sensation by the time Voldemort became a regular character in the Potter movies in 2005, so you'd think someone on the crew would have shown the actor a clip of like Oro's encounter with Team 7 in the Forest of Death, for voice and body language inspiration.


----------



## Ruthless Tsuchikage (Nov 5, 2021)

Its been a time since the books came out. So maybe a quick refresher course?

And then a giant snake showed up!


----------



## Yasha (Nov 5, 2021)

J★J♥ said:


> Ron was not a loser in the books. He was smarter than Hermione she was more knowledgeable. Movies changed that and even gave Hermione some of his scenes.


Umm...I don't think you read the same books I did. No way Ron is smarter than Hermione. That dude has inferiority complex because his family is poor, low self-esteem because all his siblings are smarter than him, and insecurity because his best friend is the most popular boy in the wizarding community. He often acts as a dick to others (for example the younger students) as a defense mechanism for his own fragile pride. He has all signs of a loser and future abusive spouse.


----------



## J★J♥ (Nov 5, 2021)

Yasha said:


> Umm...I don't think you read the same books I did. No way Ron is smarter than Hermione. That dude has inferiority complex because his family is poor, low self-esteem because all his siblings are smarter than him, and insecurity because his best friend is the most popular boy in the wizarding community. He often acts as a dick to others (for example the younger students) as a defense mechanism for his own fragile pride.


Other than Ron playing the best chess match in Hogwarts history. Here is a good example of him being smarter than her. Which was changed to Hermione saving the day in the movies. I think your perspective on Ron has been influenced by movies.


> Stop moving!" Hermione ordered them. "I know what this is — it's Devil's Snare!"





> "Oh, I'm so glad we know what it's called, that's a great help," snarled Ron, leaning back, trying to stop the plant from curling around his neck.





> "Shut up, I'm trying to remember how to kill it!" said Hermione.





> "Well, hurry up, I can't breathe!" Harry gasped, wrestling with it as it curled around his chest.





> "Devil's Snare, Devil's Snare… what did Professor Sprout say? — it likes the dark and the damp."





> "So light a fire!" Harry choked.





> "Yes — of course — but there's no wood!" Hermione cried, wringing her hands.





> _"HAVE YOU GONE MAD?" Ron bellowed. "ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?"_





> "Oh, right!" said Hermione, and she whipped out her wand, waved it, muttered something, and sent a jet of the same bluebell flames she had used on Snape at the plant. In a matter of seconds, the two boys felt it loosening its grip as it cringed away from the light and warmth. Wriggling and flailing, it unraveled itself from their bodies, and they were able to pull free.





> "Lucky you pay attention in Herbology, Hermione," said Harry as he joined her by the wall, wiping sweat off his face.





> "Yeah," said Ron, "and lucky Harry doesn't lose his head in a crisis — 'there's no wood,' honestly."


----------



## Yasha (Nov 5, 2021)

Nah, I only watched a couple of its movies which I think suck, so I doubt I was influenced by the movies. Ron is pretty good at chess, sure, but that doesn't make him smarter than Hermione, even when you're talking about street-smart wise. That's like calling Neville smarter than Hermione because he is better at handling Mandrakes. Ron is a mommy's boy and whiny brat. He has about the same maturity level as Draco and his sarcastic jokes, while witty at times, come from his sense of insecurity.


----------



## Undertaker (Nov 6, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> When she was 14 (Goblet of Fire) she was dating Bulgarian Triwizard champion Victor Krum, who was at the time a 17-year old final year student.
> 
> Ron expresses concern that "you know what he wants", and Hermione says that they don't talk much because "Victor is more of  a... physical being", but it's left unsaid if they actually *do it* or not.


McGonagall taught her 'Hymen Reparo' spell for a reason. 



Yasha said:


> Ron was too childish for her. I had the impression from one of JKR's interview that Hermione and Ron's marriage wasn't a very happy one. I can see grown-up Ron having drinking problem and being a loser overall and taking it out on Hermione.


And Hermione being a condescending bitch. I wouldn't be surprised if she would be a bully in this pair and Ron would be a goofy simpleton more prone to overeating rather than drinking.

Reactions: Lewd 2


----------



## Yasha (Nov 6, 2021)

Undertaker said:


> McGonagall taught her 'Hymen Reparo' spell for a reason.
> 
> 
> And Hermione being a condescending bitch. I wouldn't be surprised if she would be a bully in this pair and Ron would be a goofy simpleton more prone to overeating rather than drinking.


I lost count of how many times Ron made Hermione cry in the book. Not once had Hermione bullied him unless you count the bird attack which was a retaliation.


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 6, 2021)

Imagine comparing Voldemort, who failed to successfully shoot up a school, to Sauron or Palpatine.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 6, 2021)

Pilaf said:


> Imagine comparing Voldemort, who failed to successfully shoot up a school, to Sauron or Palpatine.



The comparison is inevitable since the Potter movies (2001-2011) came out at about the same time as the Star Wars prequel trilogy (1999-2005) and Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-2003).


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 6, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> The comparison is inevitable since the Potter movies (2001-2011) came out at about the same time as the Star Wars prequel trilogy (1999-2005) and Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-2003).



Yeah. And I understand he has some of the same basic qualities and ambitions. It's just that his actual accomplishments fall dreadfully short.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 6, 2021)

While 4 and 5 were commendably intelligible and engaging even for people who haven't read the books, 6 was unfortunately a return to the incoherent style of 1-3.

To mention just the most egregious example, the movie is called "The Half-Blood Prince", yet the book detective story about the gang trying to figure out the identity of this mysterious figure is *completely absent* from the movie. Like, what the hell? Instead the person in question just tells Harry at the end, even when we haven't seen the gang express anything beyond casual curiosity about the matter.

I understand that you have to cut some elements to get the movie down to what Warner will think is a tolerable theatrical length, but some of these decisions on *what* to cut are mind boggling.

I'm another note, the visual style of the movies seems to get literally "darker" with each installment. Part 6 was almost black-and-white (brown-and-grey). I expect that Part 7 will just  3+3 hours of a black screen with spooky sound effects.


----------



## Undertaker (Nov 6, 2021)

Yasha said:


> I lost count of how many times Ron made Hermione cry in the book. Not once had Hermione bullied him unless you count the bird attack which was a retaliation.


Oh, ok. I haven't read the books, except the last one.



dr_shadow said:


> I expect that Part 7 will just 3+3 hours of a black screen with spooky sound effects.


Almost. Part 7 was in one color - the color of disappointment.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 7, 2021)

Part 7.1 was the visually best-looking so far. The plot was "tolerably" coherent, but not as good as 4 and 5.

Like, the movies haven't established why we should care about Luna. She's just been an autism-spectrum background character up to this point. Also there's apparently another Weasley brother we've never seen before. Is he the one who researches dragons in Romania? The movie doesn't tell us.

I'll rest for a second and then we'll see if I do Part 7.2 as a double feature, or if I save it for tomorrow.


----------



## Ruthless Tsuchikage (Nov 7, 2021)

Pilaf said:


> Yeah. And I understand he has some of the same basic qualities and ambitions. It's just that his actual accomplishments fall dreadfully short.


Even what Voldie did achieve was mostly due to the rare case where he didn't needlessly cripple his own followers. The Fall of the Ministry was about his only success and that was entirely due to his underlings, and he didn't even care when they told him.

I struggle to recall anything Voldemort directly got himself involved with that didn't fail. What if he's actually a really weak wizard and everyone just fears him because he's so weird?


----------



## Canute87 (Nov 7, 2021)

That was a good movie series.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Nov 7, 2021)

Undertaker said:


>



There is nothing sexual about that; did you read the book?



dr_shadow said:


> Didn't expect Harry to get sexually harrassed by a ghost.



Are you referring to the scene with Moaning Myrtle in _Goblet of Fire?_ How does that qualify as "sexual harassment?"


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 7, 2021)

When the movies first came out, I legit thought that Moaning Myrtle was Daniel Radcliffe in drag.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Nov 7, 2021)

Pilaf said:


> When the movies first came out, I legit thought that Moaning Myrtle was Daniel Radcliffe in drag.



May I please quote this post in my signature?

Reactions: Lewd 2


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 7, 2021)

DemonDragonJ said:


> May I please quote this post in my signature?

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 8, 2021)

Finally done.

Well, as you can tell, I'm not a huge fan of the *movie* series. They're visually good-looking (though inferior to the contemporary Lord of the Rings), and the costumes and sets feel appropriate to the atmosphere of the books. BUT the writing and/or editing is too incoherent. Everywhere there are half-eaten pieces of book subplots that where neither fully developed nor fully removed. 

For example, in the last 30 minutes of 7.2 we suddently learn that Lupin has a son! This has never been established in any of the six-and-a-half movies that came before. Yet Harry treats it as something the audience ought to know. Likewise they talk about Tonks (the mother, we presume) as if she is a character we know and care about, but she was in like one scene and had maybe two lines for the entire series.

Tons of examples like that. Like how we never address how Harry and Ginny came to be a couple - it seems like they hooked up off-screen in the space between perhaps movies 5 and 6. We never learned what caused Harry to break up with Cho.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 8, 2021)

Movie Voldemort sucked too. I wanted British Orochimaru  , but his personality was more like evil Willy Wonka or whatever.

On that note, though, are the Death Eaters a British-only phenomenon?  Voldemort and all his senior lietenants appear to be of UK origin, and we never see anybody travel outside the British Isles. Yet we portray the Dark Lord like he's a worldwide threat.

Maybe he's just Magic Hitler, and he would have turned the wizarding part of the UK into a Magic Third Reich, which _in the longer term_ would have been a threat to the wizards and witches of other countries, like how the 3R eventually started a world war, but only six years into the Fuhrer's rule.


----------



## A Optimistic (Nov 8, 2021)

Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> Even what Voldie did achieve was mostly due to the rare case where he didn't needlessly cripple his own followers. The Fall of the Ministry was about his only success and that was entirely due to his underlings, and he didn't even care when they told him.
> 
> I struggle to recall anything Voldemort directly got himself involved with that didn't fail. What if he's actually a really weak wizard and everyone just fears him because he's so weird?



Very inaccurate and ignorant post.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ruthless Tsuchikage (Nov 8, 2021)

A Optimistic said:


> Very inaccurate and ignorant post.


Explain. 

Voldie really wasn't involved much with the fall of the ministry and didn't consider it a big deal. And rather than ruling Britain himself he went on vacation on Europe to shop for a better wand. Along with that he failed to kill Harry about every time they met, never drove off Dumbledore despite allegedly being superior, cripples his death eaters so they'll always fail to kill Harry and he dies while being unable to bring some rowdy boarding school into line. 

So where's all this alleged success?


----------



## A Optimistic (Nov 8, 2021)

Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> Explain.
> 
> Voldie really wasn't involved much with the fall of the ministry and didn't consider it a big deal. And rather than ruling Britain himself he went on vacation on Europe to shop for a better wand. Along with that he failed to kill Harry about every time they met, never drove off Dumbledore despite allegedly being superior, cripples his death eaters so they'll always fail to kill Harry and he dies while being unable to bring some rowdy boarding school into line.
> 
> So where's all this alleged success?



Rate this post so I can remember to reply later on, and I’ll answer all your questions when I’m not on mobile.

Reactions: Lewd 1


----------



## Canute87 (Nov 8, 2021)

@dr_shadow 

I never said it was better than the books.


----------



## Amol (Nov 8, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> I just realized Harry and Hermione (at least) are wearing Muggle clothes in this movie. Jeans and whatnot. Why is that?
> 
> I thought wizards all wore robes while in their own "world"?



Denying everything from muggle culture was a thing of Pureblood.

Both Harry and Hermione were raised by muggles. They were not going to abandon their habits just because some Purebloods had problem with it.

Hermione is literally known for challenging Wizarding traditions as she didn't agree with most of them.
It is obvious why they wore muggle clothing.



> For examples like that. Like how we never address how Harry and Ginny came to be a couple - it seems like they hooked up off-screen in the space between perhaps movies 5 and 6. We never learned what caused Harry to break up with Cho.


We did learn what caused Harry to break up with Cho.
In movie canon it was Cho who gave up location of DA's secret hiding out to Umbridge(in books it was Cho's friend).

There is scene in movie where Harry looks so disappointed in her.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 8, 2021)

Amol said:


> In movie canon it was Cho who gave up location of DA's secret hiding out to Umbridge(in books it was Cho's friend).
> 
> There is scene in movie where Harry looks so disappointed in her.



Umbridge is implied to have *tortured* her, though.


----------



## Amol (Nov 8, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> Umbridge is implied to have *tortured* her, though.


Well Harry went through same torture (actually worse) for entire year and he didn't break.

One session broke Cho. So maybe that is what Harry didn't like.

I am not saying Cho did anything wrong here. Torture is torture. She was a victim and it was not her fault.

Harry probably just wanted someone strong, I guess. Everything is very dramatic and serious when you are a teenager.

Books made point of portraying Cho as an emotional and weeping girl. Harry's attraction for Cho was really just harmones. Harry liked her because she was pretty. It was never going to last that long.


----------



## Kingslayer (Nov 8, 2021)

Sirius death shocked me . I didnt really expect rowling to kill him off given he was fighting for his innocence all his life.

Also apart how 5th book was my favorite  novel where it goes deep into ministry of magic and Dumbledore. How Dumbledore's over protectiveness was like double edge sword for Harry. Given i think Dumbledore's explanation  was rational but it proves what Aberfort said in final novel how his brother can  put his close ones into danger  .


Dumbledore  has less cared about how harry's mental state and hard life he endured with dursley .  The final novel rowling shows Dumbledore  in different  light from Aberforth's perspective.

Dumbledore is not mighty saint character as i think after finishing entire novel. I wish he could have made harry's life easier if he had prepared him for inevitable fate .

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kingslayer (Nov 8, 2021)

You know funny thing snape being expert in dark art and not knowing about Voldemort's  horcrux was big lol . 

I was surprised why snape never asked or confidedby Dumbledore  Voldemort  had 7 of them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Garcher (Nov 8, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> Movie Voldemort sucked too.


the worst thing about about movie voldemort was his death, they completely butchered it and turned it into the opposite of what it was supposed to be

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 8, 2021)

Amol said:


> Well Harry went through same torture (actually worse) for entire year and he didn't break.
> 
> One session broke Cho. So maybe that is what Harry didn't like.
> 
> ...



Still, you're saying that the director expected the audience to understand all of this from a *look*, with no dialogue. Towards the end of a movie that is almost three hours long.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Kingslayer (Nov 8, 2021)

Garcher said:


> the worst thing about about movie voldemort was his death, they completely butchered it and turned it into the opposite of what it was supposed to be


Ralph Fiennes  saved it his acting was only reason voldemort was menancing.

Rowling was fortunate  to have great cast like Rickman, Thewlis, Gary oldman, Maggie smith etc .


----------



## Garcher (Nov 8, 2021)

J★J♥ said:


> Ron was not a loser in the books


he is clearly the biggest loser out of all weasley siblings, by a lot


----------



## Garcher (Nov 8, 2021)

Pilaf said:


> Imagine comparing Voldemort, who failed to successfully shoot up a school, to Sauron or Palpatine.


this remembers me of one of the first youtube videos I've ever seen 
unfortunately the original got deleted

voldemort was already getting disrespected as a villain before HP ended

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 8, 2021)

Now starting "Fantastic Cash-Grabs and Where to Find Them", which apparently came out *five years* after Deathly Hallows. People still cared about Potter after that long? Apparently.


----------



## Garcher (Nov 8, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> Now starting "Fantastic Cash-Grabs and Where to Find Them", which apparently came out *five years* after Deathly Hallows. People still cared about Potter after that long? Apparently.


Harry Potter still has a big and active fanbase, there's still quite a lot of interest in HP content. People quickly not giving a fuck anymore after the end like it happened for GoT isn't what usually happens to long running, super popular series.


----------



## J★J♥ (Nov 8, 2021)

Garcher said:


> he is clearly the biggest loser out of all weasley siblings, by a lot


Hes a legitimate genius.

Reactions: Lewd 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 8, 2021)

"Fantastic Cash-Grabs" is actually the best or second-best (after 5) of the *movies*, because it's actually written and structured like a movie. You can understand what's happening without having to go to a different medium.

It being set in a different time and place than Potter (1920s America rather than 2000s Britain) also makes it inoffensive in terms of continuity and casting. We don't need to see the child versions of Dumbledore, Voldemort, and Hagrid.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Garcher (Nov 8, 2021)

J★J♥ said:


> Hes a legitimate genius.


how so?


----------



## J★J♥ (Nov 8, 2021)

Garcher said:


> how so?


He played the best chess game in Hogwarts history at age of 11


----------



## Garcher (Nov 8, 2021)

J★J♥ said:


> He played the best chess game in Hogwarts history at age of 11


he was good at playing a board game in the first book, wow

all of his siblings and his two best friends still overshadow him

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Kingslayer (Nov 9, 2021)

Garcher said:


> how so?


Ron was underrated he clearly had confidence  issue because all his brother were successful .

He was able to beat transfigured chess set by Mcgonagall  in part 1 he was genius .


----------



## Kingslayer (Nov 9, 2021)

Garcher said:


> he was good at playing a board game in the first book, wow
> 
> all of his siblings and his two best friends still overshadow him


7 owls better than fred and george to be fair. I would say the only genius people in weasley family were bill and percy . 

He joined Auror office after epilogue so not that bad.


----------



## Garcher (Nov 9, 2021)

Kingslayer said:


> 7 owls better than fred and george to be fair. I would say the only genius people in weasley family were bill and percy .


Who talks strictly about being genius?
Bill: head boy, marries one of the most hottest girls in the series
Charlie: quidditch legend
Percy: head boy
Fred & George: legendary rule breakers, accomplished quidditch players, successful business men
Ginny: most popular, beautiful, funny, sporty, perfect dream girl in school 

meanwhile Ron constantly has self esteem issues, his biggest accomplishment is being Harry's und Hermione's sidekick, he only was made prefect because Dumbledore thought Harry had already too much shit going on. every other weasley was extraordinary on their own, Ron just had extraordinary friends. People often bring up that he is "street smart" or something like that to argue that he makes a worthwhile contribution to the main trio, but the narrative clearly favors Hermione who is usually proven right instead of him.


----------



## Kingslayer (Nov 9, 2021)

Garcher said:


> Who talks strictly about being genius?
> Bill: head boy, marries one of the most hottest girls in the series
> Charlie: quidditch legend
> Percy: head boy
> ...


Well thats because  the character was underrated by Rowling. I assume you did real final novel right ?

Ron is like Quarterback . He knows how to solve when harry and hermione  are left behind .


----------



## Garcher (Nov 9, 2021)

Kingslayer said:


> Well thats because the character was underrated by Rowling.


surely it is the author underrating her own character instead of the reader overrating him  
there's reason most of the drama involving him is characterized by his inferiority complex.


----------



## Skyfall (Nov 9, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> Movie Voldemort sucked too. I wanted British Orochimaru  , but his personality was more like evil Willy Wonka or whatever.


I agree with this completely. I was not a fan of Voldemorts design in the movies. I had imagined him much differently in my head from reading the books first.


But haven't revisted the books or the movies since they last came out. Might binge watch the series this week if I have some time.


----------



## Yasha (Nov 10, 2021)

Kingslayer said:


> Well thats because  the character was underrated by Rowling. I assume you did real final novel right ?
> 
> Ron is like Quarterback . He knows how to solve when harry and hermione  are left behind .


I only remember him throwing tantrum like a baby and leaving Harry and Hermione alone to find the Horcruxes and escape Death Eaters for a significant portion of Book 7.


----------



## lol 4th dimension reiatsu (Nov 10, 2021)

Yasha said:


> I only remember him throwing tantrum like a baby and leaving Harry and Hermione alone to find the Horcruxes and escape Death Eaters for a significant portion of Book 7.



He opened the chamber of secrets, saved Harry's life, and had the idea of using the basilisk fangs, every time Harry does something clever not related to school it's probably his idea.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 10, 2021)

AFAIK the first book hadn't introduced the concept of apparation yet, but in retrospect – what was to stop Voldemort from just apparating past the traps that protected the Philosopher's Stone? 

Did we establish that there's an anti-apparation shield spell?

Also why does any adult wizard use brooms or other flying vehicles when they can just teleport?


----------



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2021)

Man 90% of what you guys are talking about I don't even remember.  It's weird, I enjoyed the movies when I watched them but I don't have any desire to sit there and slug through them again.  And I damn sure am not gonna read those long ass books.


----------



## Garcher (Nov 10, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> AFAIK the first book hadn't introduced the concept of apparation yet, but in retrospect – what was to stop Voldemort from just apparating past the traps that protected the Philosopher's Stone?
> 
> Did we establish that there's an anti-apparation shield spell?


please shadow. it's already bad enough that you say that you can barely comprehend the movies without book knowledge. you really didn't catch that  apparition doesn't work in Hogwarts? (also didn't work in the Malfoy Manor for that matter). that was mentioned both in the books and the movies. iirc only the books explicitly mention that it is the result of a spell but that should be obvious


dr_shadow said:


> Also why does any adult wizard use brooms or other flying vehicles when they can just teleport?


because it's increasingly difficult for longer distances, dangerous and not really a comfortable experience


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 10, 2021)

Garcher said:


> that was mentioned both in the books and the movies.



No it wasn't? Or do you have a scene reference for where in the movies they said this?


----------



## Garcher (Nov 10, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> No it wasn't? Or do you have a scene reference for where in the movies they said this?



iirc in the books Dumbledore and Harry first fly to Hogsmeade with brooms and apparate from there, movie cut that short by saying Dumbledore has special rights (probably because he is the headmaster). But the general rule is explicitly mentioned as you can see. Not to mention we actually see that there are protective measures against apparition (Draco having to use the vanishing cabinet, the incident at the Malfoy Manor, Death Eaters storming Hogwarts in the final battle rather than just teleporting into it)


----------



## Undertaker (Nov 10, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> Also why does any adult wizard use brooms or other flying vehicles when they can just teleport?


Wizards like to have a big phallic objects between their legs and small phallic objects in their hands. Magic...

Reactions: Funny 1 | Winner 2


----------



## Ruthless Tsuchikage (Nov 10, 2021)

Kingslayer said:


> Sirius death shocked me . I didnt really expect rowling to kill him off given he was fighting for his innocence all his life.


We should be sad, but its said love can cancel out Avada Kadavra, so maybe Harry just didn't love Sirius enough   

Except in the books were it wasn't Avada Kadavra.


----------



## Ruthless Tsuchikage (Nov 10, 2021)

Garcher said:


> Harry Potter still has a big and active fanbase, there's still quite a lot of interest in HP content. People quickly not giving a fuck anymore after the end like it happened for GoT isn't what usually happens to long running, super popular series.


I think aside from the grumpy shippers most people came away satisfied with the last book. Unlike GOT where the final season was a trainwreck that burned every bit of goodwill the series ever had.


----------



## Ruthless Tsuchikage (Nov 10, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> AFAIK the first book hadn't introduced the concept of apparation yet, but in retrospect – what was to stop Voldemort from just apparating past the traps that protected the Philosopher's Stone?


DOES NO ONE READ HOGWARTS: A HISTORY!? You can't apparate on school grounds!

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1 | Winner 1 | Useful 2


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 10, 2021)

Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> DOES NO ONE READ HOGWARTS: A HISTORY!? You can't apparate on school grounds!



So it's like the school has a Plot Shield (_aegis narratio_) around it.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 10, 2021)

TBH I guess a "problem" with the whole premise of this series is that "magic" by definition has obscure rules, so the scope and limitations of what magic can and cannot do is dictated by "whatever will make the story more exciting."


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Nov 10, 2021)

I severely disliked how the movies removed a significant amount of details from the books, but someone else that I severely disliked is how the final book was adapted into two movies; I understand that there was simply too much content that was crucial to the story to be removed, but that example led many other franchises to follow it, such as _Twilight, The Hunger Games,_ and _Divergent,_ all of which adapted the final novels of their series into _two_ movies, each, and, most egregiously, _The Hobbit,_ which divided a single book into _three_ movies, all of which were blatant attempts to make more money from the audiences.



Garcher said:


> the worst thing about about movie voldemort was his death, they completely butchered it and turned it into the opposite of what it was supposed to be



What was it supposed to be?


----------



## Garcher (Nov 11, 2021)

DemonDragonJ said:


> What was it supposed to be?


The whole point of destroying the Horcruxes was to make Voldemort an ordinary, mortal human again. So when he gets hit by his own curse in the books he just banally drops dread. In the movies he dissolves into ash as if he still was some kind of superhuman monster.

Also in the books there was never a long duel between Harry and Voldemort, instead Harry just explains why Voldemort how he fucked up, that he can't win because Harry owns the Elder Wand and gives him a chance to remorse - Voldemort in his arrogance tries to kill him anyway and basically kills himself in a very anti-climatic way

Reactions: Agree 1 | Useful 1


----------



## Van Basten (Nov 11, 2021)

Very good franchise.

I’m a casual, movie-only fan.


----------



## Garcher (Nov 11, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> TBH I guess a "problem" with the whole premise of this series is that "magic" by definition has obscure rules, so the scope and limitations of what magic can and cannot do is dictated by "whatever will make the story more exciting."


HP isn't beloved for its consistent world building and well-written plots, in retrospect there's a lot of stupid/contrived stuff; there being a counter spell for apparition isn't the worst.

Reactions: Useful 1


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Nov 14, 2021)

Some people dislike Cho Chang's name; why is that? What is wrong with her name?



Garcher said:


> The whole point of destroying the Horcruxes was to make Voldemort an ordinary, mortal human again. So when he gets hit by his own curse in the books he just banally drops dread. In the movies he dissolves into ash as if he still was some kind of superhuman monster.
> 
> Also in the books there was never a long duel between Harry and Voldemort, instead Harry just explains why Voldemort how he fucked up, that he can't win because Harry owns the Elder Wand and gives him a chance to remorse - Voldemort in his arrogance tries to kill him anyway and basically kills himself in a very anti-climatic way



I personally think that the more powerful and important to the story a villain is, the more dramatic their death should be, so I do not have a problem with that.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 14, 2021)

DemonDragonJ said:


> Some people dislike Cho Chang's name; why is that? What is wrong with her name?



They probably think it's a made-up stereotypical Chinese name. It sounds similar to the offensive mock-Chinese phrase "ching chong".

But for once it's wrong. The Chinese subtitles (and I assume Chinese translation of the book) interpret her name as Chang Cho (Pinyin: _Zhang Qiu_ 張秋), which is a perfectly normal-sounding Chinese name.

Zhang is the third-most common Chinese surname and probably means "Archer" (it's been in use since antiquity, so the original meaning is a little obscure).

Qiu means "Autumn", which coincidentally can be a feminine name in English too. So "Cho Chang" could translate literally to "Autumn Archer".

The "archaic" Wade-Giles spelling suggests that her family is either from Taiwan, or that they migrated to Britain prior to 1949, when the Communists changed the spelling standard.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Undertaker (Nov 16, 2021)

dr_shadow said:


> they apparated to Britain prior to 1949


fixed

Reactions: Funny 1 | Useful 1


----------



## Narcissus (Nov 16, 2021)

'Harry Potter' cast to reunite for film's 20th anniversary
					

Rowling, who has faced backlash and fallout over her comments about transgender people, will be featured in archival footage.




					www.nbcnews.com

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Nov 18, 2021)

Garcher said:


> Fred & George: legendary rule breakers, accomplished quidditch players, successful business men



They were the most impressive of the whole bunch.
Despite dropping out their understanding of magic was at the level of prodigies.
Their magic items were  even purchased by the ministry to defend against enemies.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Nov 21, 2021)

In _Goblet of Fire,_ Barty Crouch jr. was impersonating Moody for the entire school year, but I found it very difficult to believe that he could have maintained that _facade_ for that entire time, especially because Dumbledore was a close friend of the real Moody; it would have made much more sense if the real Moody had arrived at the beginning, and then Crouch had impersonated him halfway through the year.

Also, on that subject, the younger Crouch insisted he was innocent at his trial, and it was only at the end of the book that he revealed that he truly was loyal to Voldemort, whereas the movie made it clear from the beginning that he was loyal to Voldemort, which was a major change that severely ruined the twist at the end; why would the filmmakers do that?


----------



## Undertaker (Nov 26, 2021)

DemonDragonJ said:


> Dumbledore was a close friend of the real Moody



IDK if Dumbledore was really a friend to anyone.
Dumbledore was a selfish guy thirsty for greatness. He participated majorly in creating these challenges for himself. Grindelwald and Voldemort. And he was ready to sacrifice a lot to win or rather to fix his own mistakes.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Nov 28, 2021)

Undertaker said:


> IDK if Dumbledore was really a friend to anyone.
> Dumbledore was a selfish guy thirsty for greatness. He participated majorly in creating these challenges for himself. Grindelwald and Voldemort. And he was ready to sacrifice a lot to win or rather to fix his own mistakes.



He was that way when he was younger, but, as he aged, he became more humble and more concerned with everyone's welfare and the common good.


----------



## A Optimistic (Jan 3, 2022)

Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> Explain.
> 
> Voldie really wasn't involved much with the fall of the ministry and didn't consider it a big deal. And rather than ruling Britain himself he went on vacation on Europe to shop for a better wand. Along with that he failed to kill Harry about every time they met, never drove off Dumbledore despite allegedly being superior, cripples his death eaters so they'll always fail to kill Harry and he dies while being unable to bring some rowdy boarding school into line.
> 
> So where's all this alleged success?



I forgot to reply to this post and I apologize for that. I can still reply to this, but only if you’re still interested in discussing this since I know it’s been awhile. Just don’t wanna waste my time typing about a topic you’re no longer interested in.


----------



## Ruthless Tsuchikage (Jan 3, 2022)

A Optimistic said:


> I forgot to reply to this post and I apologize for that. I can still reply to this, but only if you’re still interested in discussing this since I know it’s been awhile. Just don’t wanna waste my time typing about a topic you’re no longer interested in.


Go for it

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## A Optimistic (Jan 3, 2022)

Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> Even what Voldie did achieve was mostly due to the rare case where he didn't needlessly cripple his own followers.



This comment makes it sound like Voldemort needlessly cripples his followers often? Full disclaimer, I'm interpreting "needlessly cripples" as Voldemort either killing or mutilating his followers for no good reason, so if that's not what you meant then feel free to correct me.

The only example I can think of this is when he murders his followers after he goes berserk when he finds out that the main characters are after his Horcruxes. It wasn't the best move to start murdering his own followers, but he was in a blind rage and that was a one time thing. I can't think of any another time Voldemort tried crippling any of his followers for no reason.

Can you elaborate?



Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> The Fall of the Ministry was about his only success and that was entirely due to his underlings,




The Fall of the Ministry was not his only success, but I'll elaborate more about that below. Let's focus on the "and that was entirely due to his underlings,"

This is false. The Fall of the Ministry was Voldemort's idea, and it was done on Voldemort's orders. So how can you give all the credit to his underlings? If a leader of a country comes up with an idea to attack another country, comes up with the plan for how the soldiers should carry out the attack, and then orders his soldiers to attack and said soldiers succeed, are you going to give all the credit to the soldiers? 

Or you can look at this another way, are Voldemort's underlings capable of bringing about the Fall of the Ministry _without _Voldemort? We saw the lives of many Death Eaters after Dark Lord fell the first time, most of them were either rotting in Azakaban or were pretending to be good guys all along. There is no chance the Death Eaters could ever bring about the Fall of the Ministry without Voldemort and it's inaccurate to give them all the credit. The credit goes to Voldemort. The Fall would never happen without him, it was his idea, and it was on his orders. 



> “It is a start,” said Voldemort. “But Thicknesse is only one man. Scrimgeour must be surrounded by our people before I act. One failed attempt on the Minister’s life will set me back a long way.”



Here's a direct quote from the book. Voldemort is explaining the that he won't act until the Minister is surrounded by his people. Actually now that I think about it, that quote implies it was Voldemort who killed the Minister himself. So yeah then, Voldemort does get all the credit. It was his idea, on his orders, it was his plan, and he pulled the trigger that killed the Minister. 






Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> and he didn't even care when they told him.



Where are you getting this from? As I showed in the previous quote, Voldemort was concerned about one mistake setting him back a long way, so it implies that he cared very much about the Fall of the Ministry. I'm not sure why you think that he didn't care. Do you have a quote from the books to support this claim?




Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> I struggle to recall anything Voldemort directly got himself involved with that didn't fail.



- Discovered the Chamber of Secrets when thousands of wizards and witches failed (like Dumbledore for example).

- Invented the ability to fly without a wand

- Invented a curse so powerful that it led to Dumbledore dying. And both Dumbledore and Snape tried to stop it together and failed.

- Invented a charm so powerful that forced every DADA teacher to leave their position after a year. A charm so powerful that Dumbledore could not remove it even after 50 years.

- Managed to commit numerous crimes and even murder at Hogwarts without ever getting expelled. This is extremely impressive when you take into account that the wisest Wizard of all time was keeping a close eye on him. For reference, Grindlewald the prodigy got expelled from his school and he definitely didn't have anyone as wise and skilled as Dumbledore keeping a watchful eye over him

- Completely dominated both the Ministry and the Order of the Phoenix during the First Wizarding War. It was stated that the Death Eaters outnumber the Order of the Phoenix by 20-1, the Order also had no idea that Wormtail was a spy. It was also stated that the Ministry was on the verge of collapse and were losing the war against the Dark Lord badly. Voldemort was on the verge of defeating both organizations at the same time before he attacked the Potter family.

- Broke out all of his followers from the most secure wizarding prison multiple times.

- Orchestrated the fall of the Ministry

- Caused Dumbledore's death

- Ruled over the United Kingdom with an iron fist




Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> What if he's actually a really weak wizard and everyone just fears him because he's so weird?



Dumbledore seems to disagree with you.



> "I knew that Voldemort’s knowledge of magic is perhaps more extensive than any wizard alive. I knew that even my most complex and powerful protective spells and charms were unlikely to be invincible if he ever returned to full power."





Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> Voldie really wasn't involved much with the fall of the ministry



Went over this already.



Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> and didn't consider it a big deal.



Went over this already.



Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> And rather than ruling Britain himself he went on vacation on Europe to shop for a better wand.



That's a silly oversimplification of events. Harry Potter was the biggest threat to Voldemort's hegemony. Unlike anime villains who like to sit back and do nothing when there is a threat on the horizon, Voldemort likes to take initiative. Voldemort left the UK to go look for the Elder Wand so he could kill Harry and so he could become stronger, that seems like a sound strategy to me. 

Also you make it sound like Voldemort just left the UK without making the necessary preparations beforehand, which is inaccurate. Voldemort made sure that the new Minister was someone under the Imperious Curse. He made sure that the Senior Undersecretary to the Minister for Magic is someone that would further the Death Eater agenda. He made one of his Death Eaters the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement. He made another Death Eater the Headmaster at Hogwarts. He made another Death Eater the teacher of the Dark Arts. He made another Death Eater the teacher for Muggle Studies. He made his headquarters at the Malfoy Manor impenetrable for any witch and wizard. He created a taboo that spanned the entire country that would alert every one of his followers with the exact location of anyone brave enough to say his name. He had the Death Eaters and the Ministry hunting Harry Potter and constantly spreading anti-Potter propaganda to discredit him. He sent Nagini to Godric's Hallow to ambush Harry incase he went there. He ordered all wizarding children in the UK to attend Hogwarts, not giving them the option of homeschool or studying aboard so he can keep a watchful eye on the entire UK wizarding population. And finally, Voldemort ordered any of his followers to summon him immediately if they caught wind of Harry Potter's location. Voldemort can fly and teleport so he could return to the UK in a very short amount of time.

So yeah, I'm not sure where you get this idea that Voldemort did no "ruling". All the shots were called by him. And he only left the UK in order to further strengthen his own power and hegemony.

Were you expecting Voldemort to stroll into the ministry and declare himself the new Minister of Magic or something? Ron Weasley had the same idea as well, however Lupin explained why that was not a good idea.



> “Why didn’t Voldemort declare himself Minister of Magic?” asked Ron.
> 
> Lupin laughed. “He doesn’t need to, Ron. Effectively, he is the Minister, but why should he sit behind a desk at the Ministry? His puppet, Thicknesse, is taking care of everyday business, leaving Voldemort free to extend his power beyond the Ministry. “Naturally many people have deduced what has happened: There has been such a dramatic change in Ministry policy in the last few days, and many are whispering that Voldemort must be behind it. However, that is the point: They whisper. They daren’t confide in each other, not knowing whom to trust; they are scared to speak out, in case their suspicions are true and their families are targeted. Yes, Voldemort is playing a very clever game. Declaring himself might have provoked open rebellion: Remaining masked has created confusion, uncertainty, and fear.”







Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> Along with that he failed to kill Harry about every time they met,



I've seen you post in the Naruto and One Piece sections before. I know you're familiar with the concept of the main character not dying.




Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> never drove off Dumbledore despite allegedly being superior



Never drove off Dumbledore from where? What are you referring to?

Regardless, Dumbledore died because of Voldemort's curse. Dumbledore failed to capture Voldemort at the Ministry. Dumbledore was losing the First Wizarding War badly to Voldemort, not knowing that Voldemort had a spy in his ranks. The Death Eaters outnumbered the Order of the Phoenix by 20-1 during the First War. Voldemort never got caught for any of his crimes while being a student at Hogwarts despite Dumbledore watching him. And due to Voldemort's plan and help from Barty Crouch Jr, Harry Potter was kidnapped from right under Dumbledore's nose and was able to successfully regenerate.




Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> , cripples his death eaters so they'll always fail to kill Harry



Still have no idea what you're referring to.




Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> and he dies while being unable to bring some rowdy boarding school into line.



What really happened is the Death Eaters were dominating the fight despite Voldemort not participating in the first half, then Harry Potter "died", and then Lily's love protection spread to everyone on Harry's side which prevents any of them from dying or being seriously harmed anymore. Then the elves and centaurs joined in. And Voldemort and Bellatrix were both using wands that weren't 100% working properly for them.

If you want to consider the author pulling every deus ex machina possible in order to make the good guys win as "he dies while being unable to bring some rowdy boarding school into line", then be my guest.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## A Optimistic (Jan 3, 2022)

there was something else i wanted to say but i forgot


----------



## Skaddix (Jan 4, 2022)

A Optimistic said:


> there was something else i wanted to say but i forgot



I mean you destroyed your opposition I think you are good bro

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## A Optimistic (Jan 4, 2022)

Skaddix said:


> I mean you destroyed your opposition I think you are good bro



thank you for the kind words


----------



## Skaddix (Jan 4, 2022)

A Optimistic said:


> thank you for the kind words



Ur welcome. I would also add that the reason you don't take total control as Minister is because I believe the Wizarding World is somewhat democratic ergo, its also nice to have a replaceable fall guy as the leader so that when things go bad or you really need to ram through unpopular policies someone else can take the blame. You can then garner good will by throwing them under the bus and putting in a new leader to pretend you listened to the populace.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------

