The Harry Potter Movies

[HoodlumSheep]

I feel like I'm late to the unpopular opinion discussion, so sorry. I don't like Harry/Ginny in the books or movies. It just felt so sudden and forced. And I thought Dan and Bonnie had zero chemistry (sorry!). That's why I can never get 100% behind Ron and Hermione either (at least in the movieverse); the movies made that relationship feel kind of toxic; they're yelling at each other 99% of the time.

Movie Ron needed an occasional whack on the head.

One thing that sometimes disappointed me was some of the Snape scenes. I respect how Alan Rickman decided to play them, but I was kind of sad that we never got to Snape lose it like he does in the books (particularly the sections that would be written in all caps in the books).

I have lots more to say, but I'll have to do it at a later point.

Edited June 20, 2015 by HoodlumSheep

[KatWay]

I love Alan Rickman's Snape and I find Book Snape a very interesting character. However, I usually think of the two as two different characters. Rickman's Snape just never seemed that malicious and cruel to me, more bitter and cynical. He disliked Harry, but I never got a sense of overt hatred towards him that I got from the book version. Rickman's Snape seemed to suffer in noble silence more than Book Snape, who sadistically lashed out at students and had his feelings of resentment very close to the surface.

 

Book Ginny and Movie Ginny are also two different characters to me. Bnnie's Ginny was a more quiet, reserved girl, talented, pretty and eye-catching, but not the prom queen everyone fawned over. Book Ginny was sassy and confident and hot and popular and also a super talented witch and quidditch player. She seemed like a stock character to me (or some oedipal combination of James & Lily Potter), so even though Bonnie & Daniel had zero chemistry and Ginny was a bit of a non-entity, I still prefer her to the book version.

[truthaboutluv]

The thing about movie Ginny is that the screenwriters didn't give her a huge personality transplant between movies, like JK did with the character, between books. Now maybe that was because they realized there was no way Bonnie could pull off that Mary Sue prom queen version JK turned Ginny into but whatever the reason, for as bad as she and Harry were onscreen, at least the character remained recognizable throughout the series. So points to the films for that. In the books however, Ginny went from shy and awkward girl to the baddest, most beautiful, most athletic, funniest, most amazing girl ever. It was total whiplash and only added to why she and Harry felt so forced in my opinion in the books. 

Edited June 20, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[HoodlumSheep]

Harry and Ginny seemed like an oedipus complex sort of deal. Ginny was a red head, talented, smart, pretty, etc...

I missed having the quidditch in the 3rd movie. I know it was completely unnecessary when it came to the importance of the other content, but I wanted to see them win! That was the only time they won with Harry not being kicked off the team!

And it was so intense in the book!!!

Edited June 21, 2015 by HoodlumSheep

[anony mouse]

The thing about movie Ginny is that the screenwriters didn't give her a huge personality transplant between movies, like JK did with the character, between books. Now maybe that was because they realized there was no way Bonnie could pull off that Mary Sue prom queen version JK turned Ginny into but whatever the reason, for as bad as she and Harry were onscreen, at least the character remained recognizable throughout the series. So points to the films for that. In the books however, Ginny went from shy and awkward girl to the baddest, most beautiful, most athletic, funniest, most amazing girl ever. It was total whiplash and only added to why she and Harry felt so forced in my opinion in the books.

I could at least buy that Ginny was more spirited around family and friends, and merely shy around Harry because of her crush - and that Harry was such a doink he didn't notice. Since the books are from his point of view, it's more limited and I can see where Ginny might be growing as a person but Harry's oblivious to it, thus making her look like a Mary Sue when he wakes up.

The problem is, JKR could have done better at showing us that growth from her even if Harry didn't notice. However, I got Harry and Ginny more than Hermione and Ron. Harry desperately wanted a family to belong to, and I don't think Ginny ever lost her hero worship. I don't think it's a particularly healthy relationship, but it made far more sense to me than the ham fisted way JKR handled Ron and Hermione. Particularly in the movies, where Ron had some of his better moments cut, I was left thinking how poorly matched they were. The movies were a pretty poor showing of Harry and Ginny, too - I think the lack of chemistry between Dan and Bonnie left them dead in the water.

[Spartan Girl]

Harry desperately wanted a family to belong to, and I don't think Ginny ever lost her hero worship. I don't think it's a particularly healthy relationship, but it made far more sense to me than the ham fisted way JKR handled Ron and Hermione.

I respectfully disagree with the above statement. For Ginny, it might have started out as a hero worship when she was little, but by OOP she had been around Harry long enough to see him as a real person, warts and all, instead of just The Boy Who Lived. I really wish the movie had kept in the scenes where she made it clear she wasn't holding with CapsLock!Harry's attitude, not to mention the infamous "Lucky you" moment (and IMO I don't think Harry was purposely disregarding Ginny's possession ordeal, he was just too wrapped up in his own problems that he genuinely did forget for a moment). They had other moments in the book that showed that Harry was starting to see her as another formidable friend and not just Ron's little sister.

And I really don't think Harry would be so desperate for a family that he'd end up with Ginny just to be a part of the Weasley family. They took him in the moment he became Ron's friend. That never would have changed even if he wound up with Cho, Luna, or Hermione.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Spartan Girl

[benteen]

One place where Snape disappoints is with the Half-Blood Prince reveal.  That's such an emotionally charged scene in the book.  Snape is SEETHING during that scene, especially when Harry calls him a coward.  But Rickman plays the scene so lifeless is makes no impact.  Radcliffe brought it in that scene but I don't know why Snape is so reserved in that scene when it's supposed to be so emotionally charged.

[Eeksquire]

 

Radcliffe brought it in that scene but I don't know why Snape is so reserved in that scene when it's supposed to be so emotionally charged.

I think it almost had to be played that way in the movies, after Snape was constantly on Harry to "control your emotions!" over and over again.  It wouldn't have made sense to have him lose it then, after the entire (movie) series was played as though he never really lost his temper at anyone.

[VCRTracking]

I cut the adaptations some slack because I don't think readers who grew up along with the characters realize it's different imagining an 11 year old having these scary adventures then actually seeing a child that age in the same situations. Rewatching the first movie, the trio were babies, basically. It was enough to have Alan Rickman loom over them to be scary. If he had raised his voice it would have been too much.

Edited June 25, 2015 by VCRTracking

[ChromaKelly]

I cut the adaptations some slack because I don't think readers who grew up along with the characters realize it's different imagining an 11 year old having then actually seeing a child that age in the same situations. Rewatching the first movie, the trio were babies, basically. It was enough to have Alan Rickman loom over them to be scary. If he had raised his voice it would have been too much.

True. When my son (age 6) watched the first movie for the first time, he asked me why Snape was so mean. He still doesn't quite get why Snape is my favorite character.

 

[JustaPerson]

With all the new backstory about the Dursleys, I would love to know more about how James and Lily got together. I mean it was pretty well established that Lily did not like James at all for a while and obviously he stopped such a douche long enough for her to actually like him but the specifics would be interesting.

[Spartan Girl]

Yeah, maybe JKR can do a character bio for Lily and/or James in honor of Harry's birthday next month!

[jennifer6973]

personally, I think the first 2 were the worst for me, visually anyway.

[ybrik]

Oddly for me I really prefer the last 3 movies over the others despite the fact the books are probably my least favorites. I go back and forth on POA because I enjoy watching the movie but I still find myself annoyed at what was left out IE Marauders. GOF is enjoyable but nothing really special. The first two movies I basically don't really hate but no great love for them. OOTP breaks my heart because I really don't like it. It's not a bad movie but the middle 3 books are my favorite with OOTP probably my favorite and the movie really doesn't do it service to me.

 

I would love to see if someone tried to redo books as movies again or adapt them to TV one day. It would be interesting to see the differences in how they would present it now that they would have the advantage of knowing the whole story. Of course I would rather one day they do a series on the Marauder's era.

 

The one true romances for H/G and R/H both fell flat to me in the movies and in the books. With Harry and Ginny I think going through the thread most people have expressed my feelings as well. However, there was one part of HBP involving them that really bothered me, the fight at the Burrow. Listening to a podcast review of the movies, one of the reviewers brought this up as the director/writer showing that Ginny was a worthy partner for Harry because she runs after him to fight beside him. All I could think was that this was just as bad as JKR making her the prettiest, fiercest, most athletic, etc blah, blah, blah. The problem in both cases is that there shouldn't be a need to make someone worthy of another. There should be a connection that goes deeper than superficial. As others pointed out, in the books and movies, Harry is shown having these type of connections with Hermione and Luna.

 

Ron and Hermione do something in the movies and books that amazes me, they are literally the will they/wont they couple like on TV that gets held off one too many seasons. Granted they are teenagers but they had supposedly liked each other for at least 2-3 years before they do anything. Sometimes while watching the movies and reading the books I almost feel that JKR wanted them to be some kind of teenage Han and Leia. Problem was that what worked for Han/Leia was that they were older so their bickering was tinged with subtle undertones of flirting. While R/H were just bickering children. In the books I can kind of forgive this more because this is Harry's POV so we don't ever see them when it is just the two of them. Who knows maybe Ron is like most of us guys who tend to act one way with girls when we are with friends and another when we're alone. Of course my main problem with the pairing is that the bickering cliché.

 

I think that my preference for the last 3 movies over their books is that I really started feeling indifferent to all the death in the books. Yet somehow Dobby's death in DH pt 1 gets to me. Of course, book or movies can't stop my anger at Fred's death. I mean seriously JKR's real OTP in the books is Good People/Death.

 

Part of me enjoying the movie version of HBP rather then the books comes down to one scene which is Slughorn's speech about Lily and the fish. It is one of my favorite moments in all the movies.

[truthaboutluv]

While R/H were just bickering children. In the books I can kind of forgive this more because this is Harry's POV so we don't ever see them when it is just the two of them. Who knows maybe Ron is like most of us guys who tend to act one way with girls when we are with friends and another when we're alone.

 

 

That reminds me of a scene in the books that always stood out to me. In POA, when Ron and Hermione go to Hogsmeade for the first time without Harry, when they return, they're described as having bright, happy cheeks and you clearly get the feeling they had a blast. Now obviously you can argue that they were just happy because they'd gotten to go to this place they'd been looking forward to for the first time and had a blast because of that. But I always thought that it was an interesting way of showing that they could get along just fine without Harry and have fun with each other.

 

But yes, for some reason, whenever around Harry, all we saw was the constant bickering. Though I will say, I think, based on Ron's reaction to Krum in GOF, we're supposed to assume that they didn't start seeing each other romantically until they were older. So in the first three books at least, I think their bickering probably was genuine irritation at each other and not some underlying sexual tension. But yes, with seven books, because it'd been going on since the first book, it got really old and tired by the end. 

 

I will also say that there were times when I found the bickering a bit too nasty for people who were supposed to be friends, especially on Ron's end. One thing that always stood out to me was in POA again, when Hermione reports Harry's broom to McGonagall and he and Ron get mad at her. Harry, who's the one who had his gift taken, eventually gets over the whole thing and accepts that Hermione was just worried and trying to help. Ron refuses to forgive her to the point that she full on bursts into tears after he's mean to her again and Harry has to tell him if he can't just let it go. And this was over something that wasn't even his. 

Edited June 27, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[Spartan Girl]

Actually Ron was ready to forgive her too until he found out that her cat apparently ate his rat. THAT was the reason for their big fight in POA.

[stealinghome]

I will also say that there were times when I found the bickering a bit too nasty for people who were supposed to be friends, especially on Ron's end.

In general Ron can be a real ass to people he's supposedly friends with, though--it's not just Hermione. He was such a jerk to Harry in GoF, and I'll never forgive him for abandoning Harry and Hermione in Deathly Hallows. He was always my least favorite of the Trio before that, but after that he was dead to me. (Oddly enough, though, he came off better in the movie than in the book--I think the movie tried its damndest to downplay how much his walking away really crushed Harry and Hermione.)

[truthaboutluv]

And what really got me about his leaving was his anger when Hermione wouldn't leave with him which he of course turned it into Hermione naturally picking Harry over him. When instead it wasn't that she was picking Harry over him but being a loyal friend who as she said, "they promised they would fight with and support Harry always." And that's why I've said Hermione was probably the greatest friend ever. It broke her heart to tell Ron no since she was already in love with the idiot, but they had made a promise to Harry and she wasn't going to break it. I guess in fairness to him, he did redeem himself in the end. 

[Spartan Girl]

Part of me enjoying the movie version of HBP rather then the books comes down to one scene which is Slughorn's speech about Lily and the fish. It is one of my favorite moments in all the movies.

 

 

I liked that moment too.  I'm a sucker for any reference or backstory to Lily Potter.  Plus Jim Broadbent made Slughorn a little more likable than he ever was in the books.

[anony mouse]

Yes, he really did - although I liked Slughorn in the books, too. Left me wishing he'd taught potions the whole time.

[VCRTracking]

"All hands on deck Granger!" is my favorite Slughorn line.

[Spartan Girl]

I remember when POA came out in theaters I was still grieving over Sirius's death in OOP.  The part where Harry talks about the nice big house in the country him and Sirius are going to live in when he caught his name cleared made me think, You bastards couldn't resist rubbing it in, could you?!

 

Even though I get the filmmakers probably thought it was too gruesome, part of me still wishes they left in Wormtail getting strangled by the magical hand Voldemort gave him.  As awful it was to read about, after everything he did -- selling out the Potters, framing Sirius, murdering Cedric, and oh yeah, helping Voldemort get his body back -- he so had it coming.  Gotta give JKR credit for giving him a fitting comeuppance.

[benteen]

While Wormtail met a fitting end, I was disappointed with how his storyline resolved itself.  He’s largely forgotten about after Goblet of Fire before he returns to briefly did in TDH.  After all the shit he was responsible for, I thought his repayment to Harry should have been doing something a lot bigger than showing a moment of mercy.

 

Maybe I’ve got it all wrong.  The moment of mercy did allow for Harry’s escape and his possession of the Elder Wand.  But Harry’s (ultimately unwise) saving of Wormtail should have resulted in Wormtail doing something bigger for him in return.

Edited July 1, 2015 by benteen

[Spartan Girl]

The only thing that could have redeemed him was turning himself in and clearing Sirius' name. But it was too late for that, so...

[VCRTracking]

Catching DH II at the end of Harry Potter marathon on ABC Family. I thought this before when I saw it in theaters, and I'm glad checking Twitter, I'm not the only one, but Ginny and Harry's mom look very similar! Enough that Harry looks like he has kind of an Oedipus complex!

Edited July 27, 2015 by VCRTracking

[stealinghome]

I think the Oedipus complex is tooooootally in the books--it's not just the movies. JKR could never shut up about Ginny's bright red hair! And not that either got a ton of characterization in the books, but OotP through DH Ginny sounds like a dead ringer for schoolgirl-age Lily.

[JustaPerson]

Watching the HP movies again made me remember that HP is SO much better than the "sagas" they have coming out nowadays. I like the Hunger Games, but it doesn't hold a candle to HP imo. 

[truthaboutluv]

I love The Hunger Games and I loved Harry Potter and in my opinion, they are so different that I wouldn't compare them. I think what Harry Potter most has going for it is the incredible universe J.K. created. To me, the real MVP of the Harry Potter series, wasn't Harry or most of the characters - don't get me wrong, they were interesting enough - but it was really the magical world she created.

 

She created this magical fantasy for readers and this world where all these fantastic and incredible things happened. The Hunger Games wasn't like that at all. That series was essentially a war story. And while I don't doubt for a second that Harry Potter will be the one that truly stands the test of time for generations to come, I loved both series and YMMV but I found Katniss a far more compelling heroine than Harry.

 

I liked Harry but oddly, I found the older the character got, the less I connected with him. I don't know if that was a failure of J.K.'s writing when it came to having the characters mature. And finally, YMMV again and perhaps an unpopular opinion, I think the Hunger Games movies are a far better adaptation than the Harry Potter movies. Of course in fairness to the Harry Potter movies, the trio in particular were so young when they were cast and neither was exactly amazing in the acting department as opposed to Hunger Games which has Jennifer Lawrence, already an Oscar nominee when she was cast, carrying it. 

Edited July 27, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[JustaPerson]

I thought that at first as well, that they couldn't be compared but I thought they were a bit similar. Both Harry and Katniss really became "The Chosen One" through events neither could really control (well katniss had some), which made them both symbols of something so much bigger than themselves while they were still trying to figure out to be kids. Idk the one thing that will always hold back the Hunger Games movies for me is the complete glossing over of Peeta's character. It's like the writers sat around and made a deal that if they ever needed to cut anything, they would just cut anything Peeta said or did that wasn't necessary to plot. So basically his entire character. Not that the HP movies didn't gloss over things as well (so many things), but I never felt any of the characters ended as lost in translation as Peeta was. 

[truthaboutluv]

Well I've read many arguments that the Harry Potter movies did that to Ron's character. I understand the criticisms some had about Peeta in the films but honestly, and this is coming from someone who LOVED Peeta (he is actually my favorite character instead of Katniss), I am okay with the films. I went in knowing that certain things would have to be sacrificed because it always happens in adaptations. To me the only thing they really didn't play up about Peeta in the films is his humor and snark. But I think Josh and the writers did a great job of showing his love for Katniss and even his bravery.

 

And ironically, I thought MockingJay was probably the best for his character and he was barely in it but his being gone really showed how important he was to Katniss and by that token, the cause. And I for one can't wait to see Josh play hijacked Peeta in the last film. But I digress since this is the Harry Potter thread and not Hunger Games. I will say in defense of the Harry Potter films and one of the reasons I think the Hunger Games was able to have a better adaptation is the fact that the series was complete before they started the films. I think that definitely helped the screenwriters and directors and all involved have a better understanding of how to adapt the films because they knew where it was going. The Harry Potter filmmakers didn't have that because the series was still being written when they started adapting the films. 

[stealinghome]

And finally, YMMV again and perhaps an unpopular opinion, I think the Hunger Games movies are a far better adaptation than the Harry Potter movies. Of course in fairness to the Harry Potter movies, the trio in particular were so young when they were cast and neither was exactly amazing in the acting department as opposed to Hunger Games which has Jennifer Lawrence, already an Oscar nominee when she was cast, carrying it.

ICAM. The Harry Potter movies have a certain charm and are solid in their own right, but the books are infinitely better. I do think the Hunger Games books are still better than the movies (though sometimes I think Mockingjay Part 1 is a better movie than half book), but the gap between them is much narrower. The Hunger Games movies are better both as movies and as adaptations of the books specifically. Though in defense of HP, it's not just that the Hunger Games were done (mostly done?) by the time they started filming the first one, I would add that it is much easier to adapt a trilogy than a 7-book series. I agree that the real star of the HP books was the world, and that's the kind of thing that just gets so lost when you move to film. But still, the Hunger Games movies are much better.

 

I also agree that part of it is the actors. I've never understood the love for Radcliffe in the HP movies--he was serviceable, but definitely the weak link in the trio. On the other hand, Lawrence owns Katniss and the movies. But I also agree that casting kids is incredibly difficult. For every hit, there's two dozen misses. It's actually pretty impressive that the kid cast of HP was as decent as they were overall.

[VCRTracking]

I like that we saw the kids grow up throughout the series and I think they did improve acting wise as each film went along. The best example is the argument between Ron and Harry in the tent in DH Pt I.

[Athena]

It's actually pretty impressive that the kid cast of HP was as decent as they were overall.

 

I think the casting did a good job. Most of the kids who had dialogue were acting even before they went on HP: Daniel, Rupert, and Tom. Emma didn't and I think it showed IMHO. While Daniel wasn't all that, he became slowly better as the movies progressed. Another thing is that the kids benefited from one of the best adult supporting casts in recent years. Maybe they didn't even fully appreciate it then, but acting and being exposed to veteran actors like Harris, Gambon, Rickman, Thompson, and so many more probably did help them.

 

I find it hard to compare Katniss and Harry. Not only their completely different worlds, but I think their age differences matter. I can't quite compare Jennifer Lawrence to Daniel Radcliffe either. I do think JL owns her Katniss role; it's almost iconic for her. It plays exactly into her raw acting skill sets. In the books, I love both characters for different reasons though I was much more depressed with Mockingjay.

[Spartan Girl]

Maybe I cut them a little more slack than I should, but I thought the trio did okay....no worse than some other child actors anyway. But I agree that their acting was the best in the last few movies. Daniel's especially in the final half of DH Part 2. The whole Forbidden Forest sequence still kills me.

Despite the movie editing the Prince's Tale (i.e leaving out the very valid reason why Lily didn't wind up with Snape), Alan Rickman knocked that out of the park. His vulnerable "Look at me" to Harry was just perfect.

[GaT]

Well I've read many arguments that the Harry Potter movies did that to Ron's character. I understand the criticisms some had about Peeta in the films but honestly, and this is coming from someone who LOVED Peeta (he is actually my favorite character instead of Katniss), I am okay with the films. I went in knowing that certain things would have to be sacrificed because it always happens in adaptations. To me the only thing they really didn't play up about Peeta in the films is his humor and snark. 

 

And his height, don't forget his height.

[raezen]

I will always give TPTB on HP props for how difficult it must have been to cast the kids. Kids that they were going to have to watch grow up in the role, that is risky, and I just can't see myself comparing it to casting Jennifer Lawrence. She had already done Winter's Bone. Hell, she'd even skinned a squirrel in WB. Along with that she was 20, not 12. Had Lionsgate gone with Grace Chloe Moretz or Hailie Steinfeld, both good but risky choices it would be more comparable.

My sister's complaint about the films being made before the series completion was that she couldn't read the books that came after without thinking that the movies were influencing JKR's description of the characters. Specifically for Ron.

I don't think I can imagine what would have happened with THG had they cast before the 3rd book came out. Specifically for Peeta. People can complain all they like about JH's height but he is very good as a hijacked Peeta.

Edited July 29, 2015 by raezen

[JTMacc99]

I liked Harry but oddly, I found the older the character got, the less I connected with him. I don't know if that was a failure of J.K.'s writing when it came to having the characters mature. 

I chalked that up to the fact that he had to become more isolated, more different, part of the team but also alone.  I think you see it best when you look at how Hermione talks to him as they get deeper into the story.

[truthaboutluv]

I chalked that up to the fact that he had to become more isolated, more different, part of the team but also alone.

 

 

Late response but I guess that sort of makes sense. It's just I realized as the series went on, I just felt more and more detached from Harry which is odd because he was my favorite character at the start of the series. Actually I'd say it started specifically from Half Blood Prince. It's just strange and I think that's why I was even less interested in that OBHWF ending - by the end I just didn't care anymore. Like I cared about the big battle, the wizarding war and how they finally defeated Voldemort but other than that, not so much.

 

I expected to feel this warmth or happy satisfaction reading the ending of these characters whose journey I had followed for seven books and I just didn't. It was pretty much just "oh yeah...okay." Not to necessarily compare THG again but as sad as that series ended on one hand, on the other, I felt an emotional satisfaction reading the ending and seeing how Katniss' story ended. I don't know, maybe I fell victim to J.K. taking so long to complete the series and by the time the end came, my attention had waned. And unlike so many fans I'm definitely not so tied to it many years later.

 

Honestly, I found myself rolling my eyes pretty hard at all the tweets from Buzzfeed and other entertainment sites, flooding my feed, about James Sirius Potter starting Hogwarts and being sorted into Gryffindor, etc. Basically I feel like I have no attachment to the Harry Potter series and the characters, like some beloved childhood books I will love for years and years. That said, POA and OOTP are still my favorite books of the series and I'll still give them a re-read every so often. 

Edited September 7, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[truthaboutluv]

Having read the two Cormoran Strike mystery books JK wrote under the Robert Galbraith pseudonym, I can say she's better at writing adult relationships. You really do want  Cormoran and his secretary/assistant Robin to get together.

 

Funny, I just finished the first book (and honestly, it didn't entice me to rush to read the second one) and I actually don't want them together and in fact, I find Robin kind of annoying to be honest. She had some weird passive aggressive moments of anger over the stupidest thing, like his not being excited enough in tone at some news or just really dumb shit. Yeah I actually didn't finish the book wanting them to get together and hell, I ended up rooting more for him and the supermodel. And this just makes me conclude, considering how I felt about the HP couples, that yup, J.K. sucks at writing romance.

[VCRTracking]

Well, I got that feeling after reading the second book(which is a better mystery).

 

As for Harry Potter, an epilogue is an epilogue. I don't think it was important who ended up with whom after but how Harry finally fulfilled his destiny in defeating Voldemort.

[benteen]

Funny, I just finished the first book (and honestly, it didn't entice me to rush to read the second one) and I actually don't want them together and in fact, I find Robin kind of annoying to be honest. She had some weird passive aggressive moments of anger over the stupidest thing, like his not being excited enough in tone at some news or just really dumb shit. Yeah I actually didn't finish the book wanting them to get together and hell, I ended up rooting more for him and the supermodel. And this just makes me conclude, considering how I felt about the HP couples, that yup, J.K. sucks at writing romance.

 

I found just about every character in the Strike novels to be unlikeable, save Robin.  I'm tired of Strike's misanthropic attitude as well.  Sometimes I wonder if that's how JK views everyone.

[Browncoat]

This probably isn't the right place to ask, but I wonder why ABCFamily never shows Goblet of Fire on their Harry Potter weekends.  Anyone know?

[Spartan Girl]

Maybe because they already played it so many times before they finally started playing the final 3 movies that rather figured they could skip it?

[Browncoat]

Maybe, but they still play Sorcerer's Stone, Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban.  Then they skip to Order of the Phoenix and continue from there.

[shoregirl]

It was on HBO2 today, so I wonder if the can't show it if it's in rotation on a premium cable channel.

[VCRTracking]

J.K. Rowling just gave America its own word for 'muggle' and it's awkward

 

America, a seismic shift has occurred in our great nation this week, and like all of England's tyranny, it was done without our voting consent.

Author J.K. Rowling has decreed that American citizens who are not witches or wizards will no longer be known as "muggles." Instead, the American wizarding community will semi-derogatorily refer to the larger non-magic-using population as "No-Maj" — pronounced "no madge," like an abbreviated form of "no magic." The regional nomenclature will make its debut in the Rowling-written Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, which will be the first Harry Potter film (or book, or play) to take place primarily in America.

 

TBH it does sound like something we Americans would do!

Edited November 5, 2015 by VCRTracking

[GaT]

No-maj? She couldn't come up with something better than that? It reminds me of put-outer from the first book which luckily became deluminator by the final one. No-maj just sounds stupid.

[Demented Daisy]

I think it's kind of brilliant.  Saying it aloud, it sounds like "nomad".  I imagine a bunch of witches and wizards could sit around and talk about non-magical folk and none would be the wiser.  The human brain does have a tendency to convert words we don't know into ones we do.

 

Besides, we Americans like to mash words together to make new ones, no matter how silly they might sound.  ;-)

[benteen]

No-maj sounds very Boston-like.

 

I know she established in Quidditch through the Ages that America had a sport they liked more than Quidditch, which definitely fits.

[jcin617]

Some still photos from the upcoming movie.   US "ministry" is the Magical Congress of the United States of America (or MACUSA, naturally...)  I think it looks awesome.