The Ultimate Harry Potter Thread

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

 

[Scalenex]

I got to read the Eragon series at some point. I liked the movie. I also liked that the protagonist was raised by his uncle and grew up with his uncle's biological son and the uncle loved his nephew very much. He said something a long the lines "I am lucky to have two fine sons."

A nice subversion of the begrudging step family to an orphaned hero. I guess the protagonist is still an orphaned hero, but he had a relatively pleasant childhood.

 

[Infinity Turtle]

I got to read the Eragon series at some point. I liked the movie.

There are a handful of movies I’ve been watching semi-regularly (or I used too) since quite a young age, and even though I’m usually very judgemental and critical of things, I just can’t rap my head around them not being “yeah pretty good” (since the general consensus is that the Eragon movie sucks) but even if it isn’t loyal to the books, from what I remember the CGI is pretty good, I like the dragon design, it was my first Jeremy Irons movie (I think... either that of dungeons and dragons) and there’s a couple moments where the evil king yells a few lines and I will never be able to remove them from my soul cause they’re just there.

I will actually steer this back to Harry Potter, because I think Eragon suffered from setting itself up for sequels that never came, and perhaps the quality would have gone up. The first Harry Potter movie (in my opinion) is one of the if not THE weakest of the series, and I think that if they had released it, it had bombed, and there were never any more sequels, then people would try to pretend it never happened.

Obviously the Eragon books didn’t have quite the impact of Harry Potter, but I think given a couple more years, for a few more ages it would’ve continued to grow it’s audience and a perhaps the movie would’ve done better (even if it wasn’t better quality). Also Harry Potter had like 8 movies to continually build exposition. There is exposition in every film (okay maybe nit DHp2) sometimes plot stuff and sometimes just Harry not knowing wizard stuff. But the universe was growing and there were changes to the films (as I’ve mentioned between Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban, such as new dumbledore -which was inescapable in this case, Hagrids hut, some character designs, Hogwarts layout etc) and as such they could grow.

Basically, if Eragon was given its full series it was obviously leading to based on a couple of cliff hangers and reveals, perhaps it would have gotten better and people would have looked back fondly on the first Eragon film in the way people can about the first Harry Potter.

I have way to many opinions on this. I hope this was interesting. I was watching Downton abbey and the guy who plays Eragon popped up and I was like this:

 

[Scalenex]

You went into a long thing about the impact of fantasy movies.

I just wanted to talk about the fact that I think abuse step family is an overused trope in fiction. And in my opinion it was not very well handled in Harry Potter in my opinion.

I think the abuse Harry took was not very realistic. I understand that there are abusive people out there, but I've never met anyone that bad.

Even the worst person I know wasn't that abusive to her daughter.

It was really really bad in Book 3 and Book 4 when Harry was literally starved by his guardians. Great Britain doesn't have any equivalent to Child Protective Services in the Harry Potter universe?

Given that Dumbledore was apparently watching Harry from afar all this time, he probably should have intervened surreptitiously on his behalf more than the one time he sent a Howler in Order of Phoenix.

Also, there is an issue with show don't tell.

It is revealed in Book 5 that Aunt Pentunia cares about Harry deep down and in it is revealed in Book 7 that Dudley cared about Harry deep down.

Later, Rowling explained that adult Dudley and adult Harry get along okay and their kids are fond of each other.

This kind of violates the story telling principle of "show, don't tell." Because the few times where Harry Potter's relatives are said to care about them we are told about it, not shown it.

I am not sure if this is a conscious bias, but I believe that Rowling believes blood is thicker than water. She covers themes of family a lot. It's worth noting that Uncle Vernon is more of an asshole than Dudley or Petunia, the latter two have blood ties to Harry.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

I got to read the Eragon series at some point. I liked the movie. I also liked that the protagonist was raised by his uncle and grew up with his uncle's biological son and the uncle loved his nephew very much. He said something a long the lines "I am lucky to have two fine sons."

A nice subversion of the begrudging step family to an orphaned hero. I guess the protagonist is still an orphaned hero, but he had a relatively pleasant childhood.

I like Eragon too, I liked the film, I have the first two books (started reading the first but didn’t finish it, I should read them both) and have a book with some expanded universe lore and stuff. My only real complaint about it is that you can easily see it’s a fantasy rip-off of the Star Wars Original Trilogy (farm boy living with his uncle gets swept up into a battle against an evil regime and joins an order of persecuted warrior sorcerers), but I still like it.

Actually you’re mistaken with Eragon being an ‘orphaned hero’ because Brom, his father, was alive and in hiding (and hadn’t turned to the dark side unlike in Star Wars), and he meets him later on in the story, but I get your point - his uncle was a lot more pleasant and accommodating of him than Uncle Vernon or even Uncle Owen.

Also, there is an issue with show don't tell.

It is revealed in Book 5 that Aunt Pentunia cares about Harry deep down and in it is revealed in Book 7 that Dudley cared about Harry deep down.

Later, Rowling explained that adult Dudley and adult Harry get along okay and their kids are fond of each other.

This kind of violates the story telling principle of "show, don't tell." Because the few times where Harry Potter's relatives are said to care about them we are told about it, not shown it.

There is a deleted scene in Deathly Hallows Part I where, when the Dursleys flee Privet Drive, Harry and Dudley shake hands and part on good terms, so in this case the films actually subverts the books in the idea of ‘showing rather than telling’.

 

[Scalenex]

(farm boy living with his uncle gets swept up into a battle against an evil regime and joins an order of persecuted warrior sorcerers),

You ever played Zelda a Link to Past. (Super Nintendo version). In that version, Link is a farm boy raised by his uncle who gets swept up into battle against an evil regime but it turns out he is the last heir to the Knights of Hyrule, an order of persecuted sorcerer warriors.

Stardust, the character was raised by a single father and he was a shopboy, but the same principle applies. Tristan was pulled into a magical adventurer and realizes he secretly has a mystic heritage.

I don't have a problem with that story. Some story telling tropes are clichés and some tropes are classics.

I'm pretty sure George Lucas is not the first writer to have a plucky farm boy get swept into a giant war against evil.

Maybe I'm being a hypocrite. I don't have a problem with the trope of scrappy young farm boys destined to be magical heroes battle against evil. I like that story. But I find the trope of the abusive step family boring and overused.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[Scalenex]

Over and over again, in her book, Rowling beat the point home that Professor Umbridge was an ugly toad-like woman with a girly voice that didn't match her exterior.

The actress that played her in the movie was good but the casting was weird for me because i had an established image for her in my brain that was very different. There are not a lot of non-photogenic people in TV and film and the few that are average looking or even below average looking don't want to be typecast as an ugly character. Thus it is kind of unavoidable.

As far as I'm concerned, Rowling should have retconned her own books to make Snape in the book look exactly like Alan Rickman.

I don't know why, but JK Rowling seems to like to describe characters that are somewhat weird looking. Even the good looking characters have odd features that mar them. Harry and his father had perpetually unkempt hair. Lupin was aged prematurely, Viktor Krum was a bit bowlegged. Dumbledore had an unusually long misshapen nose. Most of the characters had some prominent physical flaw.

Now Hermione was never described as being ugly but she was not described as looking Emma Watson. In Goblet of Fire, she kind of had an ugly duckling transformation going showing that if she made an effort on her appearance she was very pretty and on some hidden level Viktor Krum was insightful for noticing this potential.

Emma Watson, did not need to make special effort to appear attractive and everyone being shocked that she looked good at the ball in the movie was weird. Though I'm sure casting agents liked seeing in her in a ballroom dress and that's why she starred as Belle in The Beauty and the Beast remake. It was kind of a stretch for her acting talents. In Beauty and the Beast, she played a shy, socially awkward girl that was made fun of for always having her nose buried in a book. Something Emma Watson never had to do before...

It didn't make a huge difference because these were minor characters but the Harry Potter movies had so many good looking people in it, that the characters from the book that Rowling explicitly stated were good looking seemed to fall short.

The books described Ginny Weasley as being very beautiful but her actress did not really shine when sharing screen space with Emma Watson. I thought Fleur Delacour was not nearly cast prettily enough since being beautiful and universally desired by all men was almost her sole character trait. I am not a great judge of men's appearance (though Neville is the hottest now), but I thought the actor playing Professor Lockheart was not that good looking.

The actress playing Luna was perfect. She is perfect at looking spacey and having crazy eyes.


This is not unique to the Harry Potter movies, I thought the casting in the Percy Jackson movies was not very good. Though almost everything in the Percy Jackson movies was not very good.

I did not like the woman they cast for Clarisse LeRue, she looked like an Aphrodite kid, not a Ares kid. It didn't help that she wasn't even in the first movie at all. In the first movie, all demigod children were the same sex as their godly parents. Ares only had sons, Aphrodite only had daughters. Then they retconned it back to the book standard for the second movie realizing that Clarisse, daughter of Ares was a useful character.

I guess it would be really hard to find an actress that looks remotely like her. You aren't going to find many actresses who look like Gina Corano and can pass herself off as a sixteen year old. Not that many teenaged starlets hit the weights frequently.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

The books described Ginny Weasley as being very beautiful but her actress did not really shine when sharing screen space with Emma Watson. I thought Fleur Delacour was not nearly cast prettily enough since being beautiful and universally desired by all men was almost her sole character trait. I am not a great judge of men's appearance (though Neville is the hottest now), but I thought the actor playing Professor Lockheart was not that good looking.

The actress playing Luna was perfect. She is perfect at looking spacey and having crazy eyes.

I agree here, no offence to Bonnie Wright but I didn’t think she was that good looking. The tomboy aspect of Ginny didn’t help her attractiveness in my eyes either, I am completely repelled by tomboyism in a girl.

Fleur was fine, Clemence Poesy is one of the more renowned French actresses and she is quite fit, though not fit enough to divert my attention as you’ll see below.

With your appraisal of Luna I’ll add to it by proudly admitting that Luna was my first movie character crush in my early to mid teens. I thought she was more attractive than Hermione...

Evanna Lynch doesn’t look as attractive now in my opinion than when she was Luna (though she’s still more attractive than Bonnie), but I will always remember her fondly as my first celebrity crush.

Kenneth Branagh was fine as Lockhart, he may not be attractive-looking to us as a couple of straight males, but I can see why a mature woman like Mrs Weasley would have the hots for Gilderoy.

 

[Killer Angel]

I've got a question regarding the moment that i probably hate the most in all the movies' saga.

I'm talking about The Goblet of Fire, and I'm curious if a certain thing is the same also in the book.

When the Goblet spits a fourth champion for the tournament, and it's Potter, everybody goes mad at him. and i mean everybody, including Dumbledore.

"ohh, Harry Potter is surely a vain glory hunter! He clearly tricked a powerful magical ward to be included in a deadly challenge! Booo, hooo, shame on you, we are so disappointed!"

REALLY?

Ron, you stupid moron, he's your friend. You two are growing together and you really think Harry is that kind of guy?

and most of all Dumbledore, you old imbecile, you should know better. You are not even giving the benefit of doubt to a person that you know is a humble guy. A guy who was able to summon Fawkes to the chamber of secrets thanks to his absolute loyalty to you.
Nah, let's forget about that diabolical and powerful wizard that wants to kill Harry, let's throw into the dump 3 years of mutual trust. Clearly Harry did it.

It was totally out of characters, and it broke my suspension of disbelief... or better, it shattered it into fine powder and dispersed it into a storm.

 

[Infinity Turtle]

Just before I add on, I thought I’d say I tried to form a solid opinion on the topic of casting/attractiveness in book characters vs films etc. but when I thought I had a good reason for one side, I saw one for the other.

Something you’ll find in particular young adult (generally fantasy) books is that everyone is gorgeous. It is fine for most readers, as the main audience is made of teenaged girls that like talking about attractive badass people, but in some cases can really annoy me cause it doesn’t quite make sense. I’ll compare (briefly, i hope) yet again two series by the same author, abbreviated to TOG (very good I love this series so much) and ACOTAR (this is not good, do not read it). Both have a large cast of people greatly varying in appearance, but generally not in attractiveness.

Though TOG establishes that while pretty much all of the main cast is attractive, only one girl (having been beautiful all her life, thus being scooped up by a brothel and later it turns out she’s a shapeshifter) is described as being definitely beautiful, and only one guy, who is referred to as being dazzlingly attractive and that’s about it, but he’s a side character and he’s had to sell himself effectively because of it + other reasons, is definitely gorgeous.

ACOTAR will introduce every new character by saying “they were the most beautiful *blank* the main character had ever seen” except one is blonde, one has wings, etc.

The former is a stretch, but it’s entertaining and the story is sometimes self aware in a comedic way, ACOTAR is problematic and it’s down to fanart and headcaon to determine how characters can be differentiated.

On the opposite side of this we have... :

I don't know why, but JK Rowling seems to like to describe characters that are somewhat weird looking. Even the good looking characters have odd features that mar them.

I am 100% okay with authors thinking of unique features to define characters to make them memorable or whatever, but sometimes it’s just because “someone needed a specific description” more than the feature is necessary. It just so happens that if these features are applied, sometimes your character won’t be attractive. Attractive people do exist and so do unattractive people, and sometimes this matters in a story, sometimes it doesn’t, but authors need to be able to establish what is true and what is more important, a few sentences on a minute detail to fill space, or a defining air/appeal of a character that effects how they are perceived.

It didn't make a huge difference because these were minor characters but the Harry Potter movies had so many good looking people in it, that the characters from the book that Rowling explicitly stated were good looking seemed to fall short.

Honestly I don’t care about casting as much as I thought. For me it comes down to acting and story telling. Unfortunately Ginny in the films just wasn’t... too great. I have no issues with tomboyishness or fiddling with femininity, because with artistic licence and adaptation these may change, but apparently she was just so different to book Ginny, and regardless, the acting wasn’t fabulous. I struggle to gauge attractiveness too much; I thought she was pretty. The weasleys in my mind don’t have to be attractive; that’s not why they’re universally loved.

I’m okay with book characters all being criminally hot and whatnot, but if that gotta be cast for a movie/show, goodluck. That’s why I’m scared for TOG. There are one or two roles that require extreeeemely precise casting. Even if Harry Ootter missed a few beats, I think the films themselves made up for it. Also they had to cast kids, and all things considered the kids looked the part and keeping them was way better than swapping them out.

It was totally out of characters, and it broke my suspension of disbelief...

I agree. It just doesn’t make sense at all. I hate it when character development is abandoned fo the sake of a different progression, or when it’s forgotten for five minutes and then brought back,

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

I've got a question regarding the moment that i probably hate the most in all the movies' saga.

I'm talking about The Goblet of Fire, and I'm curious if a certain thing is the same also in the book.

When the Goblet spits a fourth champion for the tournament, and it's Potter, everybody goes mad at him. and i mean everybody, including Dumbledore.

"ohh, Harry Potter is surely a vain glory hunter! He clearly tricked a powerful magical ward to be included in a deadly challenge! Booo, hooo, shame on you, we are so disappointed!"

REALLY?

Ron, you stupid moron, he's your friend. You two are growing together and you really think Harry is that kind of guy?

and most of all Dumbledore, you old imbecile, you should know better. You are not even giving the benefit of doubt to a person that you know is a humble guy. A guy who was able to summon Fawkes to the chamber of secrets thanks to his absolute loyalty to you.
Nah, let's forget about that diabolical and powerful wizard that wants to kill Harry, let's throw into the dump 3 years of mutual trust. Clearly Harry did it.

It was totally out of characters, and it broke my suspension of disbelief... or better, it shattered it into fine powder and dispersed it into a storm.

I agree now that you mention it, that is pretty stupid. Harry had always ever only done things that were for the greater good before, so how could everyone be so fickle to him and assume he was the one that tried to do something so dishonest as entering for the Tournament when he was underage? Not to mention that if a pair of enterprising tricksters like Fred and George, who probably knew every trick in the book through their constant reading up on things to prank other people with, couldn't enter for the Tournament when underage, how could Harry, someone who's pretty ordinary in intelligence (not to mention too honest and good to try something like that), possibly succeed where they failed?

To be honest though, Goblet of Fire is my least favourite of the films anyway, mainly because you can cut out most of it and it wouldn't affect the continuing story much (the only thing of real importance is Voldemort's resurrection which happens at the end of the film anyway).

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Harry Ootter

Is this some sort of cheesy but hilarious parody you've planned?

 

[Imrahil]

Is this some sort of cheesy but hilarious parody you've planned?

Grrr, Imrahil

 

[Scalenex]

To be honest though, Goblet of Fire is my least favourite of the films anyway, mainly because you can cut out most of it and it wouldn't affect the continuing story much (the only thing of real importance is Voldemort's resurrection which happens at the end of the film anyway).

My problem with Goblet of Fire is that Voldomort's plot was ridiculous. It had so many moving parts.

1) He had to rescue one of his captured minions from underneath the nose of a high ranking Ministry of Magic employee and trap a strong willed man with the Imperius Curse for almost a year.

2) He had to insert a spy under Dumbledore's nose for months.

3) He had to rig an ancient magical contest twice, first to let Harry in the contest, then to make sure Harry wins the contest.

4) It also required his most cowardly servant to act boldly and efficiently multiple times.

Steps 1-4 all had to occur under the nose of government observers from three nations.

It's a miracle his resurrection plan succeeded.

When talking with my friend who is a Potter I've come up with so many brutal plots Voldomort should have done it's scary, and he said "When I take over the world I'll have to have you killed."

In Book 6, I thought the Deatheaters acts of terrorism were lame. I would have staged a Death Eater attack on Muggles that left several wounded. The "wounded Muggles" are sent to St. Mungos Hospital. The "wounded Muggles" are werewolves who drank a polyjuice potion and it just so happens that they are brought in the hospital before a full moon.

During the chaos, the Death Eaters swoop in and steal as many healing potions and kidnap as many Healers as they can. Not only is the random violence terrifying but the Death Eaters control the health industry and can extort wizards and witches who need specialty cures.

In Goblet of Fire. Voldomort needed Harry's blood. He needed Harry removed from Dumbledore. Ultimately, he needed Harry to grab a portkey. Portkeys can look like anything.

How hard can be it to get Harry to pick up a random object when Dumbledore is not nearby? That's all he needed to do.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

You ever played Zelda a Link to Past. (Super Nintendo version).

Great game!

I don't have a problem with the trope of scrappy young farm boys destined to be magical heroes battle against evil.

Everybody likes to cheer for an underdog!

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

I had completely forgotten about this thread until @Bowser liked some of my posts on it last night.

Time for more memes!

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]