/hp/ Harry Potter General

Objectively Worst Character Edition

Best girl coming through.

She has odd features that look attractive when she is waifish but make her look like lena dunham when she packs on weight

id like to make murtle moan if you know what i mean

...

I'm closing this subreddit.

No :x

Bellatrix turns me on for some reason..

It really pisses me off that the 'faces of feminism' are at 99% composed of actresses, models and entertainers.

There are thousands of exceptional women who did amazing shit (pilot in the army, went to space, spent 15 years in a lab trying to cure a rare disease, are exceptional in their respective fields) but for some reason other women don't give a shit about them.

Either you have your pretty face on an ad for louis vuitton or you don't matter.
What the hell a sheltered former child star who made it in the top 0.1% because she got cast at 11 in a big franchise and then went on to work in an industry which worships the tyranny of plastic perfection because she was lucky enough to not be born ugly has to say about the struggle of being a woman in today's society?

You just know Tim and Johnny had a 3sum with her dressed as Bellatrix.

More like one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises edition. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

Took your time

tim and johnny?

Maybe you have a fetish for embarrassing hammy acting.

Get Out

Not even the worst in his family

Both his parents are worse and don't even get me started on fucking Ginny Sue

>Someone actually adapted the RLM Plinked copy pasta to this

We all know she's shit.

>Ginevra Weasley
Wasn't it Ginerva?

YOU DONT INSULT RONNIE THE BEAR

MFW reading The Cursed Child

The writing in these movies was so fucking bad

Nice trips. And this is always relevant to HP threads

agreed