The Harry Potter Movies

[SnoGirl]

4 hours ago, supposebly said:

I liked this take on the character of Newt Scamander a lot. And its explanation why critics didn't much like his portrayal.

I LOVE that video! All the reasons he listed are reasons why I love Newt.

But is the ending true? Is the studio considering demoting Newt for a different lead because critics didnt like him? Because I will be crushed. I would watch all five movies for Newt, Tina, Jacob and Queenie! No offense to Jude Law, but I am not interested in watching a Dumbledore vs. Grindwald movie because of Depp. I have faith in Rowling's story, I really hope she wins the day. We need unconventional characters and inconventional stories! And plus, you know, Hufflepuff for life ;)

[Spartan Girl]

Screw those critics, I love Newt and I thought Eddie did a fine job. And FYI, I find it incredibly offensive that people automatically assumed Newt was on the Aspergers spectrum just because of his awkward mannerisms. Those two things aren't always mutually exclusive! And if even if he is, who cares?! Maybe it would help HP fans on the spectrum not feel so alone!

And you wonder why Newt likes animals better than people...

Edited June 26, 2017 by Spartan Girl

[GaT]

21 hours ago, benteen said:

I think Eddie's performance could have worked for me if he hadn't whispered all of his dialogue.

As far as I can tell (I haven't seen a lot of him) that's how he always sounds. It's one of the reasons I don't like him as an actor, I usually have no idea what he's saying.

[HunterHunted]

1 hour ago, Lugal said:

 

I've heard people say that JK doesn't really get any country outside of UK, but there was definitely stuff she missed about America.  Different regions were founded by different peoples at different times: the Spanish in the Southwest in the 1500s, the English in New England and Virginia in the 1600s, the Germans in Pennsylvania in the 1700s and so on.  It makes sense there would be a lot of different magic schools at different times and places.  Not to mention the flack she got from Native Americans for their portrayal.

I agree that the magical community could be really isolated, like in some remote desert or mountain range (call it Godric's Holler).  I could see less bigotry within the magical communities themselves but outside it would definitely be a big deal outside the community.  And she mentioned how small the wizard community is in Britain, and how the pure-blood families are intermarried, I think it would be similar here, like how most Amish have the names Beiler, King or Stoltzfus.

Plus it's a general thing that annoys me to connect all things magical back to Salem (and Rowling is hardly the only one guilty of it) when there are other folk-magical traditions in America she could have drawn on (powwow doctors, curanderos, traiteurs, hoodoo men, etc.)

The thing that makes me the saddest is that there is so much to be mined from America's complicated history- the lost Roanoke Colony and the Croatan tribe, the Gullah people of the Carolina lowcountry, Melungeon people, Paul Bunyan, Molly Pitcher, John Henry, Johnny Appleseed, Bigfoot, Jersey Devil, the mothman, and more Native American folklore than have words to describe. America has had such a mix of cultures and such a mix of environments that it makes no sense why people would practice magic exactly the same way in the northeast, southwest, or upper midwest.

Though likely controversial, I could see a brief discussion of magical involvement in the underground railroad as a way move magical people to safety.

[SnoGirl]

4 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Screw those critics, I love Newt and I thought Eddie did a fine job. And FYI, I find it incredibly offensive that people automatically assumed Newt was on the Aspergers spectrum just because of his awkward mannerisms. Those two things aren't always mutually exclusive! And if even if he is, who cares?! Maybe it would help HP fans on the spectrum not feel so alone!

And you wonder why Newt likes animals better than people...

And when I was a preteen, I was introverted socially awkward and would have killed for more characters like Newt in movies. Heck, you could probably argue Jacob, Tina and Queenie are all against the grain. I would have mooned over all of them when I was twelve.  And I'm not on the spectrum so Newt was enduring to me...and my feeling wouldnt change if he was.

Back when I first read the HP books, my favorite HP characters were Neville and Luna, I always felt Rowling could write a minibook of what was happening at Hogwarts while Ron, Hermione and Harry were camping the seventh book away. Im not bitter, I promise. Once again, Neville and Luna were different, socially awkward and not the normal types. 

I hope Rowling holds her ground. I want to see Newt all over the world with all of his magically creatures. And Jacob being an awe of Queenie and Queenie fawning over Jacob. And Tina being super confident and show us more of the woman who became the Auror. And while Im rolling on this wish train, can I ask for different ethnicities, more body types, and someone with an actual disability like limb difference or severe hearing loss. A girl can dream.

[HunterHunted]

I know some folks have issues with Voldemort's and Bellatrix LeStrange's deaths in the Deathly Hallows part 2. I have no problems with Voldemort's. He split his soul into 8 pieces 7 of which had been destroyed. To my mind, that last little piece of soul wasn't enough to animate or hold his body together. I think the effect of his body flaking apart and blowing in the wind is supposed to show that Voldemort burned up without the animating energy of a soul.

Bellatrix on the other hand was some strange combination of spells and curses that caused her to shatter like glass. I can't even imagine what those might be. I know it looked dramatic in the movie, but it didn't really make a lick of sense for what they've shown us of magic.

[Dejana]

On 7/9/2017 at 4:59 PM, HunterHunted said:

I know some folks have issues with Voldemort's and Bellatrix LeStrange's deaths in the Deathly Hallows part 2. I have no problems with Voldemort's. He split his soul into 8 pieces 7 of which had been destroyed. To my mind, that last little piece of soul wasn't enough to animate or hold his body together. I think the effect of his body flaking apart and blowing in the wind is supposed to show that Voldemort burned up without the animating energy of a soul.

Bellatrix on the other hand was some strange combination of spells and curses that caused her to shatter like glass. I can't even imagine what those might be. I know it looked dramatic in the movie, but it didn't really make a lick of sense for what they've shown us of magic.

The magic in the films was about looking cinematic more than anything else, the movies in general, really.  Goblet of Fire is on TV and I was reminded all over again how over the top they made the dragon task out to be, with no less than the dragon tearing through the stands, the damage to the castle and Harry's broom catching on fire.

Freeform is having another Harry Potter Weekend, when I'm pretty sure they just had one a couple of weekends ago, leading up to July 31, but this one is being called Weasley Weekend. Apparently Ginny's birthday is August 11, so I guess that is the reason. When Beauty and the Beast came out earlier this year, that time they dubbed it Hermione Granger Weekend. Freeform must make so much money off these HP marathons!

Edited August 13, 2017 by Dejana

[HunterHunted]

On 8/13/2017 at 0:39 PM, Dejana said:

The magic in the films was about looking cinematic more than anything else, the movies in general, really.  Goblet of Fire is on TV and I was reminded all over again how over the top they made the dragon task out to be, with no less than the dragon tearing through the stands, the damage to the castle and Harry's broom catching on fire.

Freeform is having another Harry Potter Weekend, when I'm pretty sure they just had one a couple of weekends ago, leading up to July 31, but this one is being called Weasley Weekend. Apparently Ginny's birthday is August 11, so I guess that is the reason. When Beauty and the Beast came out earlier this year, that time they dubbed it Hermione Granger Weekend. Freeform must make so much money off these HP marathons!

Every time I watch Harry and the dragon task, I think of how weird the Tri-Wizard Tournament is as a spectator sport in the movie. There don't appear to be any large jumbotron like screens in the stadium. The competition doesn't seem to have cameras to capture what was happening in the Black Lake or in the hedge maze, let alone Harry flying all over the Hogwarts' grounds during the dragon task. This oversight is conspicuously bad considering the film starts with the Quidditch World Cup, which includes all of those elements we expect in modern sports entertainment. There is a big old screen where we first see Victor Krum. The Tri-Wizard Tournament has none of that and as depicted in the movie must be an insanely boring event to watch. "Let's go stare at the Black Lake for an hour." "Do you want to stare at a hedge maze for an hour or two?"

It's a good thing J.K. included all of those dates in the books otherwise Freeform might never have an excuse to make every weekend a Harry Potter Weekend. 

Edited August 19, 2017 by HunterHunted

[HunterHunted]

On 6/26/2017 at 5:43 PM, SnoGirl said:

No offense to Jude Law, but I am not interested in watching a Dumbledore vs. Grindwald movie because of Depp.

Now that we've learned that Depp is a pale shadow of his former self and really really lazy as actor, I'm hoping they'll recast and finally use Depp in the briefest of cameos at the conclusion of the series. Maybe Grindewald escapes and uses pollyjuice potion for most of the series.

 http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/johnny-depp-pays-sound-engineer-feed-lines-never-learns-script-management-group-lawsuit-a7714511.html

Only a single costar of his has said this wasn't true. The rest have basically given a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Edited August 13, 2017 by HunterHunted

[Browncoat]

6 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Every time I watch Harry and the dragon task, I think of how weird the Tri-Wizard Tournament is as a spectator sport in the movie. There don't appear to be any large jumbotron like screens in the stadium.

They probably didn't expect Harry and the dragon to leave the immediate area.  But the other two tasks would be incredibly boring to watch.  I suppose it would be rather like car racing -- just waiting for someone not to make it past the grindylows in the lake or to shoot red sparks from their wand in the maze.

Every time I watch (and I can't help but watch, every single Harry Potter weekend -- I'm apparently addicted), I am reminded of what an ass Ronald Weasley is.  He is downright rude to Luna when they all come back to the castle to find the diadem. 

 

ETA: Why oh why didn't Harry take that bloody locket off BEFORE he jumped into the frozen pond or river or whatever body of water it was to retrieve the Sword of Gryffindor? 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Browncoat

[Cherry Bomb]

Between the Harry Potter weekends, Disney Fun weekends and The Fosters, I spend quite a bit of my time on Free Form. I can't tell you how many times I have watched the HP movies but it has been a lot. Something always fascinates me with them each time I watch them. The one thing I don't understand with Free Form and there marathon weekends is why the eliminate The Order of the Phoenix. The show the other films, but seem to always skip that one. I would think they have the rights to all 8 of the films so maybe it is just because of time or something, but that wouldn't make sense either because they show the same film twice during the marathon. I never understood why they leave the Order of the Phoenix out.

[Browncoat]

For a long time, they left out Goblet of Fire instead.

[Dejana]

10 hours ago, Cherry Bomb said:

The one thing I don't understand with Free Form and there marathon weekends is why the eliminate The Order of the Phoenix. The show the other films, but seem to always skip that one. I would think they have the rights to all 8 of the films so maybe it is just because of time or something, but that wouldn't make sense either because they show the same film twice during the marathon. I never understood why they leave the Order of the Phoenix out.

 

7 hours ago, Browncoat said:

For a long time, they left out Goblet of Fire instead.

So This Is Why “The Goblet Of Fire” Is Sometimes Missing From ABC Family’s “Harry Potter” Weekends (Buzzfeed). It's a few years old now but the same idea still applies—the missing movie has an exclusive window with HBO at the time. 

[katha]

I still say they missed the plot on Colin Farrell. He was brilliant IMO. The first genuinely scary HP villain since Umbridge. What do they do? Blow it up in smoke for a cheap "twist". Whatever.

As for Newt, I had some issues with Redmayne's performance choices, but some of that is the script IMO. Or perhaps the realization of the script. There was an attempt to make some of the scarier aspects of the character into funny or cutesy little bits. But that only resulted in flattening him and making him less interesting. Stuff like his recklessness and irresponsibility (how much damage has that broken suitcase caused throughout the world?), or his stubborn, single-minded focus on his animals, or the botched attempt to "save" the girl with the obscurus. That's intriguing, if a bit gray, character groundwork. But none of that was a focus. So I can understand why some critics found the character bland. Something like that is unusual and it can work, but IMO it needs to be done better than in Fantastic Beasts.

[blueray]

On 8/22/2017 at 10:03 PM, Dejana said:

 

So This Is Why “The Goblet Of Fire” Is Sometimes Missing From ABC Family’s “Harry Potter” Weekends (Buzzfeed). It's a few years old now but the same idea still applies—the missing movie has an exclusive window with HBO at the time. 

Thanks for posting this. It was something that has bothered me in the past when they skip a movie :(.

Edited September 2, 2017 by blueray

[Browncoat]

Order of the Phoenix is being shown this weekend.

[Browncoat]

And speaking of Order of the Phoenix (which is on again, now), why couldn't Harry see the thestrals before this installment?  He saw his mother die, after all.  Was he just too young for it to register?  Not only that, but if he and Luna are the only ones who can see them, how can everyone else ride them to fly to London?

[Spartan Girl]

19 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

And speaking of Order of the Phoenix (which is on again, now), why couldn't Harry see the thestrals before this installment?  He saw his mother die, after all.  Was he just too young for it to register?  Not only that, but if he and Luna are the only ones who can see them, how can everyone else ride them to fly to London?

JKR said he was in his crib when his mom died so he technically didn't "see" it. 

No matter how many times I see it, I still love the part when Sirius punches out Lucius Malfoy. "Get away from my godson." So hot!

[Browncoat]

10 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

I still love the part when Sirius punches out Lucius Malfoy. "Get away from my godson." So hot!

Indeed.

10 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

JKR said he was in his crib when his mom died so he technically didn't "see" it.

But when we see Voldy kill Lily in Deathly Hallows, Harry's watching.  OTOH, I suppose that is Snape's memory, and how would he know whether or not Harry saw it happen -- just that Harry was there. 

[scarynikki12]

Rowling says that the person has to actually register what happened and what it means.  Baby Harry didn't know what was happening (he just knew that a mean looking stranger was standing in front of him hence the crying) so the thestrals stayed invisible. 

[Browncoat]

1 hour ago, scarynikki12 said:

Rowling says that the person has to actually register what happened and what it means.  Baby Harry didn't know what was happening (he just knew that a mean looking stranger was standing in front of him hence the crying) so the thestrals stayed invisible. 

That I can buy.  Still, it would be horribly scary for the rest of the gang to ride/fly on creatures they can't see.  Especially for Hermione, who doesn't like flying to begin with.

[HunterHunted]

On 9/16/2017 at 5:06 PM, Browncoat said:

And speaking of Order of the Phoenix (which is on again, now), why couldn't Harry see the thestrals before this installment?  He saw his mother die, after all.  Was he just too young for it to register?  Not only that, but if he and Luna are the only ones who can see them, how can everyone else ride them to fly to London?

On 9/16/2017 at 5:27 PM, Spartan Girl said:

JKR said he was in his crib when his mom died so he technically didn't "see" it. 

On 9/16/2017 at 6:11 PM, scarynikki12 said:

Rowling says that the person has to actually register what happened and what it means.  Baby Harry didn't know what was happening (he just knew that a mean looking stranger was standing in front of him hence the crying) so the thestrals stayed invisible. 

 

 

Most neuroscientists believe that kids start retaining memories around 2 or 3 years old. Harry was only 15 months old when his parents were killed.

I have an unpopular opinion about Richard Harris. I don't think he would have been able to pull off the emotional shifts that Gambon did. Starting in Half Blood Prince, it becomes increasingly clear how calculating and manipulative Dumbledore is. Gambon's Dumbledore, to me, came across as curious, proud, mischievous, a bit manipulative and self-involved. You could see how someone like Harry might project more kindness on to Dumbledore. You could see how someone like Gambon's Dumbledore could get involved with Grindewald.

Edited September 24, 2017 by HunterHunted

[VCRTracking]

12 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

I have an unpopular opinion about Richard Harris. I don't think he would have been able to pull off the emotional shifts that Gambon did. Starting in Half Blood Prince, it becomes increasingly clear how calculating and manipulative Dumbledore is. Gambon's Dumbledore, to me, came across as curious, proud, mischievous, a bit manipulative and self-involved. You could see how someone like Harry might project more kindness on to Dumbledore. You could see how someone like Gambon's Dumbledore could get involved with Grindewald.

I agree. Harris was good at playing the kind, grandfatherly Dumbledore in the first two movies, but the pragmatic, almost "Machiavellan" Dumbledore that's revealed later, Gambon was very suited for. Sure the yelling and angrily grabbing Harry in Goblet of Fire was a poor choice but other than that he was great. The cave scene in Half Blood Prince where he had to drink the potion, Gambon was fantastic.

[TheGreenKnight]

I've honestly always felt Gambon as Dumbledore was just weird. It was the first role I saw him in, but since then I've seen him in quite a few miniseries/films, and I know by this point that Gambon is not a bad actor at all. So I don't know what it is, I just find him way too strange as Dumbledore and it's not just that he looks nothing like how I pictured Dumbledore (tall, thin, with an approachable demeanor, occasionally intimidating). His performance made the character come across senile more than anything (when he wasn't being absurdly OTT) and it was especially difficult to buy Movie Dumbledore as some kind of chessmaster or the one Voldemort most feared when he often seemed checked out with reality altogether. Moreover, the few scenes where Dumbledore displays compassion or genuine emotion (and, even in cases where we know he was feigning emotion, he was supposed to be a very good actor), he only comes across stilted and disingenuous.

What's most disappointing about the fact that I don't like Gambon as Dumbledore is that I generally find the rest of the cast incredibly well-chosen. Well, Ginny was never quite right to me either, but she's not my favorite character anyway. *shrug*

[stealinghome]

I've always thought that a cross between Harris and Gambon would have been the best Dumbledore--Dumbledore IS supposed to have grandfatherly warmth, imo, and for me it's key to his character because it's that warmth that makes his calculation so terrifying.

But then I think Dumbledore is one of those characters that's near-impossible to cast. 

[Browncoat]

I happened upon a showing of Notting Hill last night, in which Rhys Ifans (Xenophilius Lovegood) plays Hugh Grant's flatmate.  His character and the one played by Emma Chambers sort of get together in the end, and I couldn't help but think that the two of them could certainly be Luna's parents.

[HunterHunted]

On 9/25/2017 at 4:49 PM, stealinghome said:

I've always thought that a cross between Harris and Gambon would have been the best Dumbledore--Dumbledore IS supposed to have grandfatherly warmth, imo, and for me it's key to his character because it's that warmth that makes his calculation so terrifying.

But then I think Dumbledore is one of those characters that's near-impossible to cast. 

I'd have to reread the books, but now knowing about Dumbledore, I'd want to revisit the earlier books to see if there are hints of Dumbledore's manipulative nature. I'm curious if there was any foreshadowing.

I don't know that Dumbledore is any harder to cast than Snape. I think the real problem is that Dumbledore has this 11th hour heel turn that comes seemingly out of nowhere while Snape has his own 11th hour redemption. The writing barely supported it in either case. 

[TheGreenKnight]

I remember reading about Ian McKellan turning down the role of Dumbledore, and thinking it was a shame even though it would have been weird for both Gandalf and Dumbledore to have the same actor considering how similar the two are already.

[Dejana]

On 11/8/2017 at 7:03 AM, HunterHunted said:

I'd have to reread the books, but now knowing about Dumbledore, I'd want to revisit the earlier books to see if there are hints of Dumbledore's manipulative nature. I'm curious if there was any foreshadowing.

I don't know that Dumbledore is any harder to cast than Snape. I think the real problem is that Dumbledore has this 11th hour heel turn that comes seemingly out of nowhere while Snape has his own 11th hour redemption. The writing barely supported it in either case. 

Even in the first book, I thought the way Dumbledore dangled the House Cup victory before the Slytherins before very publicly snatching it away, was not becoming of a school leader, who should really be more impartial. The first chapter of the series shows Dumbledore making unilateral decisions about Harry's welfare (over the objections of McGonagall, who'd actually observed the Dursleys and came away extremely unimpressed) and because of the simple sort of fairy tale beginning, you don't really question why those decisions are up to him, or if he has less than altruistic motives for limiting Harry's contact with the magical world in his formative years. If he'd been adopted, basically, by some wizarding family as a baby, maybe he'd have more loyalty to them than Dumbledore? Maybe a family like the Weasleys (Order members) would have less influence on Harry if he'd grown up with a magical mother and father figure who cherished him. 

With Snape, I suspected that he'd had feelings for Lily after the first book, when it was revealed that he hated James (jealousy, I figured). I felt sure of it as of Prisoner of Azkaban, where he bashed Harry's father over and over, but never said anything about his mother, not even to be disparaging about a woman who'd pick such a supposedly terrible guy. And given the sort of writer Rowling was, I didn't think she would end the series by saying, "Yup, Snape was a creep all along, Dumbledore's faith in him was misplaced!" During that Quidditch match where the kids spot him muttering as the bludger goes after Harry, they conclude that he's cursing it, but they're wrong: he was actually trying to help Harry and they just don't have the whole story. That's basically how it is with Snape for the entire series, really.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Dejana

[Vera]

I don't know if I would say that there were never hint of Dumbledore's manipulative nature. I think it was there. But the earlier books are very much written for kids. There's a lot of harrowing stuff in them, yes, but it's the adventure aspect of it all that is stressed more. But in the first book itself:

• He leaves Harry with the Dursley's despite knowing how horrible they are and then doesn't seem to have kept tabs on him for the next ten years. 
• I've always wondered about the Potter's Will. I'm guessing upon their deaths, they would have wanted Harry to go to Sirius, but Sirius ended up in Azkaban. It's Dumbledore who decides that Harry should go to the Dursleys, he has the Potter's key to their Gringott's vault, he has James's invisibility cloak, etc. Who gave him all that power? In the third book, on the other hand, it's still Sirius who signs Harry's Hogsmeade consent form!
• We only find this in the other books, but Snape, a former Death Eater, is teaching at Hogwarts. He bullies the students, but Dumbledore as headmaster still keeps him on.
• Unicorns are dying in the Forbidden Forest, so Hagrid and a few first years are sent to check it out?!
• A Cerberus in the school and the only warning the kids get is to stay away from that floor?

Regarding Snape, the 'redemption' never really worked for me. 

[EyewatchTV211]

23 hours ago, Vera said:

I don't know if I would say that there were never hint of Dumbledore's manipulative nature. I think it was there. But the earlier books are very much written for kids. There's a lot of harrowing stuff in them, yes, but it's the adventure aspect of it all that is stressed more. But in the first book itself:

• He leaves Harry with the Dursley's despite knowing how horrible they are and then doesn't seem to have kept tabs on him for the next ten years. 
• I've always wondered about the Potter's Will. I'm guessing upon their deaths, they would have wanted Harry to go to Sirius, but Sirius ended up in Azkaban. It's Dumbledore who decides that Harry should go to the Dursleys, he has the Potter's key to their Gringott's vault, he has James's invisibility cloak, etc. Who gave him all that power? In the third book, on the other hand, it's still Sirius who signs Harry's Hogsmeade consent form!
• We only find this in the other books, but Snape, a former Death Eater, is teaching at Hogwarts. He bullies the students, but Dumbledore as headmaster still keeps him on.
• Unicorns are dying in the Forbidden Forest, so Hagrid and a few first years are sent to check it out?!
• A Cerberus in the school and the only warning the kids get is to stay away from that floor?

Regarding Snape, the 'redemption' never really worked for me. 

Same here. I was okay with him switching sides and doing all he did out of love for Lily and rage over her being killed. But he still wasn't a good person. He didn't have to treat Harry so terribly along the way or do a lot of things that he did. So I thought it was way too much that Harry named a son after him and called him one of the best people ever. 

Edited November 13, 2017 by VMepicgrl
Because Lily Potter did not spell her name the way my dog's name is spelled.

[stealinghome]

Quote

Regarding Snape, the 'redemption' never really worked for me. 

Yeah, I think it's eyeroll-worthy as well. I don't have a problem with Snape switching allegiances because Lily's life was in danger (though it complicates his "redemption" that he doesn't actually feel bad for the awful things he did, but that's another conversation), and I don't have a problem with applauding his bravery as the best triple agent of all time. I DO have a problem pretending like he wasn't a totally loathsome human being who regularly abused children and who on a fairly regular basis did awful things like (for example) out Lupin as a werewolf so Lupin would get sacked. He was a good spy/solider; he was an awful human being, and both should be remembered. The idea that Harry would name one of his kids after Snape makes me both roll my eyes and throw up a little.

I agree that Dumbledore's shadiness was there from the start, but it's easy for a reader to overlook because a) genre conventions (we assume the hero has to toil and be mistreated early on, for example, because that's the basis of so many romance narratives) and b) we view the books through Harry's eyes, and Harry sees Dumbledore as Pure Good early on, so even some questionable actions are swept under the rug of "it's for a good reason." Harry's increasingly complicated understanding of Dumbledore as he gets older is one of the lovely ways the books capture growing up, so it makes sense that it seeps into the reader's awareness along with Harry's.

Quote

If he'd been adopted, basically, by some wizarding family as a baby, maybe he'd have more loyalty to them than Dumbledore? Maybe a family like the Weasleys (Order members) would have less influence on Harry if he'd grown up with a magical mother and father figure who cherished him. 

To be fair to Dumbledore, he put Harry with the Dursleys because of the family protection spell, iirc. It's not like he necessarily wanted Harry there, but it was the safest place.

Edited November 13, 2017 by stealinghome

[Dejana]

2 hours ago, VMepicgrl said:

Same here. I was okay with him switching sides and doing all he did out of love for Lilly and rage over her being killed. But he still wasn't a good person. He didn't have to treat Harry so terribly along the way or do a lot of things that he did. So I thought it was way too much that Harry named a son after him and called him one of the best people ever. 

In general I pretend the epilogue didn't happen, but agree that it's all a bit much. It fits with the sort of simplistic story she was writing early on but not what the series became and even if she wrote the last chapter to motivate herself before she "made it", she could have kept the original version as IDK, a bonus chapter or web exclusive or something. It seems like she wanted Albus' initials to be ASP (like the snake), but the boys could have been...James Weasley Potter and Albus Sirius.

The movies softened Snape a great deal, but considering where the character ends up, perhaps they (inadvertently) had the right idea of it.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Dejana

[supposebly]

1 hour ago, Vera said:

He leaves Harry with the Dursley's despite knowing how horrible they are and then doesn't seem to have kept tabs on him for the next ten years. 

That one I have no problem with. Mrs Figg kept tabs on him and probably let Dumbledore know how things were going but I believe that he thought there was no other choice to protect Harry. The isolation however, keeping Harry in the dark about who he was, I think was pure manipulation to keep Harry in place so he wouldn't try to escape from them. Well, and genre conventions, I think.

I will never understand why Harry ended up naming his son after Snape. He was a terrible person. His bravery and his smarts saved him and the Order, but he was an awful bully. Poor Neville. Snape had no business being a teacher. Sometimes, it feels Dumbledore lost sight of what the school was for and misused it as a tool for the fight against Voldemort.

Overall, I am happy that Dumbledore turned out having a lot more layers to him than well-meaning older mentor. That part of the books I still think is outstanding, how Harry's perspective changes over time and with his, ours as well.

[Spartan Girl]

For the record, Harry said Snape was one of the bravest people he'd known, not the best. Naming one of his kids after him aside, I don't think he really came to like Snape any more even after he knew the whole story. He pitied him, maybe understood him a little better but there were no warm fuzzies there. It is possible to respect someone without actually liking them.

[benteen]

Quote

We only find this in the other books, but Snape, a former Death Eater, is teaching at Hogwarts. He bullies the students, but Dumbledore as headmaster still keeps him on.

THIS.  Rowling was asked about this and said something to the effect that DD thinks dealing with teachers like Snape is a fact of life.  Dealing with difficult teachers is a fact of life you have to deal with but Snape goes above and beyond this and it makes DD look bad in comparison.  He actively bullies his students, like Neville.  Neville's worst fear is Snape and that is proven by the bogart.  How is THAT helpful or acceptable?  He's completely biased to his students.  He's unhelpful as a teacher because students hate him so much.  When does Harry actually learn something from Snape?  It's when he doesn't realize it's Snape.  Harry learned a lot from Snape's old notebook when he thought he was simply "The Half-Blood Prince."  But Snape goes out of his way to make his non-Slythern students hate him so much that they learn nothing from him.  That's a bad teacher.

Even stuff like Snape not accepting students who score less than an O (a perfect score) is detrimental.  How many students careers did he cut short because they weren't absolutely perfect academic students?  Allowing Snape to be the raging asshole he was speaks poorly on DD. 

[stealinghome]

Agreed. And if Dumbledore's rationale is "Snape's value to the Order supersedes his shiftiness as a teacher," that's one thing. But "bad teachers are a fact of life" is a big no. Snape was hardly better than Umbridge and DD was all aboard the Umbridge is an unfit teacher train.

[benteen]

12 hours ago, stealinghome said:

Agreed. And if Dumbledore's rationale is "Snape's value to the Order supersedes his shiftiness as a teacher," that's one thing. But "bad teachers are a fact of life" is a big no. Snape was hardly better than Umbridge and DD was all aboard the Umbridge is an unfit teacher train.

Agreed.  The only difference between Snape and Umbridge as teachers is that Snape didn't physically abuse his students but he d id just about everything else.

Here's JKR's old quote on it...

Quote

"Dumbledore believes there are all sorts of lessons in life ... horrible teachers like Snape are one of them!"

Teachers you hate are on thing...bad teachers undermine a good education.  By allowing Snape to teach in the manner that he did, DD was intentionally undermining his students education.  During a particularly dangerous time for the wizarding world.  That's a dereliction of duty on Dumbledore's part.

Edited November 13, 2017 by benteen

[supposebly]

I do think Dumbledore kept Snape around because he was afraid Snape would revert back to being a Deatheater if he had nowhere else to go. He also kept Trelawney around to protect her although she was useless as a teacher.

I do think Dumbledore sacrificed education over the fight against Vodemort, at least in parts. While I do think that was the higher goal and there was not much else, a few students suffering under Snape and Trelawney was a small price to pay.

A very calculating man,

But then, Hogwarts overall seemed to have an odd attitude towards their students' well-being. Three-headed dogs, excursions to the forest, keeping the school open while a Basilisk was out and about...

He had few good choices but maybe he could have given Snape Filch's job. Although that probably would have made Snape run back to Voldemort even faster.

[scarynikki12]

I need to dig out the book I have about literary influences on Rowling when she was writing Potter (yes I'm absolutely That Fan) but, from memory, there is a sub-genre of children's books in England that is basically Teachers Are Assholes and it tends to present the students navigating the day to day while dealing with teachers from hell.  Snape (and later Umbridge) fit the type of teacher Rowling would have read about growing up.  Since there wasn't a guarantee she'd even get published, much less become the author of a worldwide phenomenon, she wouldn't have thought beyond English readers.  And the English readers would definitely recognize the Asshole Teacher trope in Snape.  I do appreciate that she thought to give Snape more than just the characteristics of the trope, though I've never felt that she did it to excuse his actions.  The movies certainly seem to take that position but not Rowling herself.  Even with giving Al the middle name Severus, which does come closest I'll grant. 

If the movies ever get made again my hope is that they hire an actor for Dumbledore who can convey his complexities.  Richard Harris played him as a kindly old man and Gambon's turn around was too far in the other direction.  The character needs someone who can demonstrate that this is a man who is on the side of good but isn't above manipulation in order to accomplish it.  Harry needed to be present for the additional points scene, since 99% of the story is told from his point of view, but it's also an early indication that ole Albus isn't quite as kind as we're led to believe.  He gave those points in the Great Hall to send a message to the Slytherins.  He knew they'd pass it along to their parents and, since some of those parents were Death Eaters, it would let them know a) that raised by Muggles Harry in his first year at school had just won another battle against Voldemort, and b) the power of Dumbledore and, by extension, Hogwarts was behind him in the war to come.  It's a pretty complex scene when you consider the whole story and I would hope and future adaptations would try and convey that. 

In Fantastic Beasts news, Johnny Depp was on Graham Norton the other week and still has that horrible Grindelwald haircut so I guess there won't be a surprise face change back to Colin like I've been hoping.  Boo!

[HunterHunted]

2 hours ago, supposebly said:

I do think Dumbledore kept Snape around because he was afraid Snape would revert back to being a Deatheater if he had nowhere else to go.

I should hope that wasn't Dumbledore's actual rationale. That would mean that the slightest obstacles might have sent Snape careening back to the Deatheaters. Lord knows he barely felt any affection for any of the children there not even the Slytherins. He seemed to have decent professional relationships with McGonagall and a couple of other professors, but he's also openly contemptuous of many other professors at Hogwarts. Basically, Snape fell in love with Lily and then never had a real intimate relationship with anyone else except for Dumbledore. What kind of antisocial nonsense is that even? The Deatheaters didn't even seem to like him. Voldemort trusted Snape, but it's clear that Snape didn't really have any friends. What would he have done for the rest of his life if there had never been a Voldemort, Deatheaters, and Lily have lived? He's such a strange angry antisocial petty person. 

2 hours ago, supposebly said:

He also kept Trelawney around to protect her although she was useless as a teacher.

He kept her around to protect her, but also because her only accurate prophecies were about Harry and Voldemort.

2 hours ago, supposebly said:

I do think Dumbledore sacrificed education over the fight against Vodemort, at least in parts. While I do think that was the higher goal and there was not much else, a few students suffering under Snape and Trelawney was a small price to pay.

A very calculating man,

But then, Hogwarts overall seemed to have an odd attitude towards their students' well-being. Three-headed dogs, excursions to the forest, keeping the school open while a Basilisk was out and about...

He had few good choices but maybe he could have given Snape Filch's job. Although that probably would have made Snape run back to Voldemort even faster.

The bulk of the books are written from Harry's perspective and it's clear that he misses a bunch of red flags about Dumbledore being manipulative and calculating. I think the most important of those things being that the only people who knew about Harry being a horcrux were Snape and Dumbledore. Had the rest of the Order known, they would never have let the plan get as far as it did and would have tried to find a different way of defeating Voldemort.

[Browncoat]

1 hour ago, HunterHunted said:

Had the rest of the Order known, they would never have let the plan get as far as it did and would have tried to find a different way of defeating Voldemort.

They might have tried, but "neither can live while the other survives", so Voldy had to kill Harry/the horcrux or Voldy could never have been defeated.  The Order could not have stopped or changed that prophecy.

[Dejana]

10 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

I need to dig out the book I have about literary influences on Rowling when she was writing Potter (yes I'm absolutely That Fan) but, from memory, there is a sub-genre of children's books in England that is basically Teachers Are Assholes and it tends to present the students navigating the day to day while dealing with teachers from hell.  Snape (and later Umbridge) fit the type of teacher Rowling would have read about growing up.  Since there wasn't a guarantee she'd even get published, much less become the author of a worldwide phenomenon, she wouldn't have thought beyond English readers.  And the English readers would definitely recognize the Asshole Teacher trope in Snape.  I do appreciate that she thought to give Snape more than just the characteristics of the trope, though I've never felt that she did it to excuse his actions.  The movies certainly seem to take that position but not Rowling herself.  Even with giving Al the middle name Severus, which does come closest I'll grant.

Not to mention that Dumbledore is supposed to have been born in the 1880s, and the books started being published in the 1990s, when calling out bullying and preventing it weren't as high on the educational agenda as they are in the 2010s.

 

Quote

In Fantastic Beasts news, Johnny Depp was on Graham Norton the other week and still has that horrible Grindelwald haircut so I guess there won't be a surprise face change back to Colin like I've been hoping.  Boo!

Hoping that the Christopher Plummer addition to All the Money in the World is a huge success and it inspires other directors/filmmakers. I mean, outside of Depp's personal character, he wasn't a good casting decision for Grindelwald anyway.

[KatWay]

I still don't understand why Johnny Depp keeps getting cast. Even if we disregard his history of violence (which, looking at Hollywood's current climate, shouldn't be the way to go), he's been a caricature of himself for years now, and his performances have been extremely over the top with little nuance. Plus everybody and their mother knows by now that he's an alcoholic who's unprofessional on set. And again, most pressing of all (to me) he isn't even that good anymore. Colin Farrell's acting in Fantastic Beasts was leagues above anything Depp has shown in the last years. HOW is he getting these prestige roles still? Who's championing for him in the background of all this? Cause you know someone is.

I was so excited for the Grindelwald/Dumbledore story. But with Depp? I'm not even sure I'll watch it.

[benteen]

Depp showing up instantly made Grindelwald a disappointing and unintimidating villain.

Even if we take out the bullying issue, Snape is detrimental to the students learning, especially during a very dangerous time.  But then again, in Harry Potter, the grief of someone like Cho Chang over having her boyfriend murdered is mocked and downplayed.  This isn't always a very sympathetic world.

Edited November 14, 2017 by benteen

[TheGreenKnight]

I think Dumbledore probably kept Snape on as a teacher all those years more out of fear Snape might kill himself than anything else, and that would've been detrimental to The Plan. And Snape had too much ego to work as a janitor. I assume Dumbledore didn't allow Snape to have the DADA job that he wanted because he knew it was jinxed by Voldemort, but perhaps he didn't want Snape's inefficiencies to affect the students' defense abilities coming into the war either? Lockhart was the only applicant during CoS and Umbridge was forced on him, but both Lupin and Moody seemed decent choices for those roles. I guess DD gave Snape the post 6th year as a final thank you knowing he (DD) would be dead by the end of it and Snape would have to join the Death Eaters when he no longer had the excuse of spying on DD to keep him at Hogwarts. As for Trelawney, he probably didn't see that as much loss because he didn't believe Divination was a useful subject anyway.

I don't believe the Deathly Hallows revelations fundamentally change either character. Snape was still a horrible person who fought on the side of good. Dumbledore was a good person who happened to be a misguided youth and did some horrible things to end a war. I'd say the point of those narrative choices is more an attempt to show that people are grey.

[katha]

I always thought Dumbledore was a pretty terrible person tbh? And that didn't change at all later in his life, he just brough a sheen of superficial "niceness" to it that allowed him to manipulate people better. The observation that Snape didn't have many meaningful relationships is right, but IMO the same is true for Dumbledore. That's why I always understood Snape's strange sympathy for him, I'm sure on some level he recognized that DD is as messed up as he is. Just in different ways.

And yeah, the books are from Harry's point of view. That does skew things and limit perspective. You have this one chapter with Snape described not by Harry, and you'd barely recognize him as the same person as in the rest of the books. Granted, he's interacting with fellow adults (I think everyone agrees that Snape should never have been a teacher. Snape probably doesn't even think he should be a teacher.), but it's just so different. He comes across as an adult as well, not as stuck in arrested development (which makes sense, since he's not around Harry, who brings out the very worst in him...) and also drives home that Harry just plainly doesn't know some things. Like, Snape dispassionately acknowledges that Hermione is brilliant. So yeah, he probably hates the trio something fierce, but he probably also plays up his resentment for show effect. Which is obviously information that Harry can't ever get.

[DollEyes]

On 9/16/2017 at 6:27 PM, Spartan Girl said:

No matter how many times I see it, I still love the part when Sirius punches out Lucius Malfoy. "Get away from my godson." So hot!

That was even better than Hermione's decking Dràço in Harry Potter & the Prisoner Of Azkaban (IIRC).

On New Year's Day, HBO will show all the Harry Potter films.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Binging with Babish did a Harry Potter episode. He made pumpkin pasties (Cho Chang's favorite), treacle tarts, and butter beer:

[Frost]

I just completed rereading the entire series and now I’m wondering about some movie choices.

In The Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry is the one who figures out “more than one innocent life can be saved tonight” means both Sirius and Buckbeak.  In The Deathly Hallows, Harry is the one who suggests riding the dragon to get out of the Gringott’s vaults.  The films gave both of those moments to Hermione. 

Hermione is already firmly cemented as the brightest witch of her age and the most accomplished at charms and spells of the trio.  Why did they feel the need to give her these moments of insights, or instinct, as well?  I liked the way the books balanced out the team by having the three of them excel in different ways.  To me, Harry was a powerful enough wizard, but his main strength was his instinct.  He did very well at deducing people’s motives and what was going to happen next.  Which makes sense growing up with the Dursley’s.  He had to be watchful everyday to avoid their punishments and sneering.  It became second nature to him.  Hermione was the one with clear intelligence and determination to do her best, with a healthy splash of courage.  Ron was loyal and incredibly brave.  I know it was played for comic relief in a lot of ways, but doing things that scared the crap out of him, like following Harry into the Forbidden Forest after the spiders, is an extraordinarily courageous thing to do.

They all demonstrated mixes of strengths and weaknesses but had clear character traits that belonged to each of them as well.  And I’m not sure why the films felt the need to change those moments.  The Deathly Hallows films especially felt like Hermione was running the show and Harry and Ron were just tagging along.  

I probably sound more judgmental than I feel.  I like all the characters and what they bring to the story.  It just really jumped out at me when reading the books when some of the important character beats were switched from Harry to Hermione.