The Ultimate Harry Potter Thread

Hello fellow Lizards, it's me again, with another thread!

As a late 90s child, it was always on the cards that I would have watched the adventures of a certain boy wizard as they played out across the annals of film history, and I am indeed a considerable fan of the Wizarding World franchise.

Therefore, I've created this thread that will serve as the place for all things Potter on Lustria Online, a place to discuss Hogwarts houses, memes, favourite characters, memes, potential wargames/RPG rules and memes.

Anyone else here a Harry Potter fan? I know @Scalenex has at least watched it, and surely my fellow late-90s-born and the millennial clan of the forum must have at least seen it (@Infinity Turtle, @Paradoxical Pacifism, @HeirofCarnage, @little-myth, @Krai’kotak, @Lizerd, @ASSASSIN_NR_1, @DeathBringer125 possibly, assemble!), so I hope this thread experiences a good deal of attention!

 

Well, well, well.
I am not surprised that there is now a Potter thread, more surprised that it wasn't here earlier

As a late 80's child I remember some of my classmates in primary school reading the 4th book as it just had came out.
I myself have not(yet) read the books, but my siblings have. And of course we have all watched the movies.
I think that we watched the last 4 of them in theater. The first time I saw the first movie was in middle school during our English lessons, amazing teacher

Last January(2020) I went to the Orchestral showing of the 5th movie with my brothers, which is an extra fantastic experience.

So to summarize: I like all stuff Potter, but only know the cinematic reenactment

Grrr, Imrahil

 

No worries, certainly more people know of the films than the books. I myself have only read the first 4 books all the way through, but really should read the other three sometime...

Wow, I never knew they had orchestral showings of films - I assume that means with the music being done by a live orchestra? And the Order of the Phoenix too, that would have been awesome! (Order is one of my favourites alongside Philosopher's Stone, Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban)

Which is your favourite of the films?

 

I'm an 80's kid, but I've read the books at least three times through (start to finish) and a great fan of the series.

Ironically, although I've seen some of the films, I'm not a fan of them. They alter the books which I enjoyed so much so received a bad mark in my mind.

That all said it's a subject I really like and a great idea for a thread @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl !!!

(I cannot stress how highly I recommend reading those last three books which you say you will get to at some point. To me the story is of a far higher class than the films)

 

Yes they do that, exactly the way you think. The score is replaced by an orchestra of about 150 people (Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra has done a lot of these: Obviously Harry Potter 1, 2, 3 and 4 , but also all Lord of the Rings, Star-Wars and more) The sixth movie was due for this January, but due to Covid will be in November of 2021. This one is sold out. The tickets for the next one will be available after this show, usually they're sold out straight away.

I have to think about this for a while, first that came to mind is The half-blood prince.

The books are still on my to read list, the problem somewhat is having young kids and a wife that isn't that fond of Fantasy and Magic (she has other qualities )

Grrr, Imrahil

 

My wife's father lives in 's-Hertogenbosch and the last time we went to visit, he took us to Rotterdam and we saw the Orchestra perform the music to The Empire Strikes Back. It was pretty amazing.

 

Awesome!
It surely gives a new dimension to the movie.

Grrr, Imrahil

 

you have intrigued me

Grrr, Imrahil

 

(ANALYSIS OF CINEMA, NOT NECESSARILY PLOT - I"LL DO THAT LATER)

AHHHHH finally... okay so

A precursor for anything and everything I say in this thread, I have NOT READ THE BOOKS. This is not because I don't like reading (as we have established) and it is not that I'm prejudiced against Harry Potter (mostly - I will explain later...) I have just never gotten around to it. With that in mind, I will know talk about the Harry Potter films in a movie/cinematic/analytical way.

I really like movies. I adore cinematography that is thoughtful, I love soundtracks that compliment and are complimented by stories, I have immense respect for a handful of actors and people that are involved in film making and I'm able to appreciate the rest of them as well, practical effects are underrated and I do believe you are allowed to change things from the book. So with that approach to general cinema, here are some comments on the movies.

I like the Harry Potter movies a lot. I've seen the first one once, and have never gone back, the second one twice or thrice and only watch it in full franchise binges, I've seen the third one probably the most, I've seen the fourth and fifth around 4-5 times each, I only recently developed a soft spot for the 6th, and have watched it at least 3 times in the last 2-3 years, with the addition of my first ever viewing, and I frequently watch deathly hallows part 1, and slightly less, part 2.

I struggle to go back to pre-prisoner of Azkaban just cause they're young children and I can't relate as much, and there is a higher frequency of universe/plot and cinematic 'mistakes' or personal annoyances. There is frequent exposition throughout the whole franchise, as Harry is 'new' the the world or whatever, but the first two films have so much more and it just bother me. I believe generally that films used to set up other films have lower rewatch value.

Generic film thoughts:
I think the acting, when not great (which I think is usually is), is still satisfactory, I love the costumes, the use of practical effects (which is serious underused in today film/tv world), I love the cast, I love David Tennant, something that is an absolute MUST for me when there is a significant setting, is that throughout the films I learn my way around and could feasibly navigate my way around, which is achieved with Hogwarts (from film 3 on wards), the score is great (both John Williams and the way his themes are developed and in a way modernised/actionised in the later films) MY GOODNESS THE VISUAL EFFECTS (mainly from 3 on wards) ARE LITERALLY A DECADE BEFORE THEIR TIME. LIKE THESE COULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED THIS YEAR AND WE TAKE THIS FOR GRANTED.

Some of my favourite things:
- The setting of Hogwarts (film 3 on wards)
- "sCareD pOtTeR?!"
- the dragon in Deathly Hallows
- The Deathly Hallows animated sequence
- the design/aesthetic of the Marauder Map
- The practical immersion of the world. The world itself make sense on a cooking/cleaning, transportation, accommodation, study/work, who's-in-charge level and this means that once you know the way it works, you can simply follow the story and enjoy the shenanigans
- The action sequences where the music cuts (in the tall grass/wheat field? in Half Blood prince where it's just silence and wand blasts, when they're running from the snatchers in Deathly Hallows Part 1)

The end credits of films 3 and 6 are the best. Very cool and in line with the films (of course I know this was intentional, but the execution is admirable)

Things that made me laugh:
- When Hagrid stabs Flitwick (Warwick Davis) with a fork by accident
- "Does it hurt terribly, Draco?"
- Cedric Diggory doing the run on air thing after they teleport with the portkey

Things that made me cry (or feel sad at least): (SPOILERS) This is moreso my first few watches, or when I watch the films when I'm an emotional mess already
- When Ron and Lavender start dating and Hermione is crying
- Snape dying, but also the memory sequence from the pensive was good
- HEDWIG OH MY GOSH why did they have to do that she was my favourite I love her

Things that made me feel things and are an example of good cinema (whether it was fear, foreboding, sadness, etc.)
- When Harry and Hermione dance in the tent in DHP1
- When Bellatrix is torturing Hermione in DHP1
- The maze scenes prior to the cemetery in GOF are tense and filled with dread
- The cross country montage in DHP1 of the travelling while the radio lists missing wizards/witches
- Hermione showing up to the ball in GOF and getting mad at Ron later. It's just oddly realistic and relatable

Basically, in the same way somehow the MCU was pulled off and I love it and we ignore the Incredible Hulk, Thor Dark World and Antman and the Wasp (these aren't necessarily my opinons I'm just generalising), I think the Harry Potter movies are a phenomenal feat and I will ignore the Philosopher's Stone and sometimes Chamber of Secrets.

All of this being said, I do have complaints, but I'll save them for another time as this post is hefty enough. I'll also make a post on my thoughts on the universe itself, the characters, houses, the mechanics of everything etc. Before my next post I should figure out what my patronus is...

I hope someone finds this interesting. Oh well.

 

I also really enjoy the books and the movies, and I'm a middle-aged muggle. A friend with whom I worked got into the books first and encouraged my wife to read them. I held off, but picked up the first book and thought it was great. I've only read the whole series once, but I've listened to a few on audiobook as well. All of the movies are very well done. However, I agree that the books are more fun and developed (as most books are).

I have also been to Universal's Harry Potter park in Florida. The Diagon Alley portion of the park is particularly fun and makes you feel like a young wizard again.

Okay, now I'm curious why you think that?

 

One of my favorite projects was to make a Hogwarts letter for a family member and a neighbor's daughter as well. They were printed and not hand-written, since my calligraphy is not great, but I was still pleased with them.

 

Some great points here.

Firstly, as I said above I really enjoyed the Harry Potter books and have read them multiple times each. So I'm with Scalenex on the fact that I really like the books, but there are major plot/story inconsistencies.

The points you bring up on the Sorting Hat are valid. The funny thing is that, to me, it kind of fits.

Godric G pulls his hat off his head and grants it sentience and the ability to see the thoughts of others. Fair enough. Now this hat is supposed to work out the personality of a pre-pubescent child?!? At that point, NO-ONE is going to have a clue on how the child will be once they turn 14, let alone how they will be in later life.

When I read books, I have to be a reader and not look at it from a professional writing standpoint. It's the same with movies. Even with this, about half the time I can't blithely ignore HUGE plot or character inconsistencies and I have to shut it off.

Anyways, like I said, I enjoyed the book series immensely and it is an international sensation so despite plot/story/character holes it still made it.

I guess a good writer has to be skilled enough to be able to write a story that is immersive enough that the readers don't get pulled out by holes or inconsistencies with their stories.

I will also say this.: Most of the time, I don't get into major holes or anything. If the writer has made a bestseller, then evidently people enjoy it and hats off to them. Having gotten back into writing recently courtesy of the writing contest (thanks again Scalenex) and also having been helping a friend with writing their first book of an epic fantasy genre, I know now it is very difficult to write a seamless plot and characters. So hats off to those who can!

 

I personally would swap Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff on this diagram.

Luna does a lot to help her friends throughout the last few films, and Cho, though all she does is cry a lot, is Harry's first love interest for some inapparent reason. Also Trelawney and Flitwick both contribute to the story a little (Trelawney predicts the rise of Voldemort and Flitwick helps create the enchanted shield to protect Hogwarts in Deathly Hallows part II.

With Hufflepuff on the other hand the only influential character is Cedric, and all he does that's of any use to the story's plot is die to Voldemort's wand (which doesn't even contribute that much to the plot).

I agree Dumbledore is more of a Ravenclaw, though he does confront Voldemort in the Ministry Chamber out of his own free will in Order of the Phoenix.

Do we know Hagrid's actual house? In the first film he sits with the Gryffindor supporters in their match against Slytherin, but that could have been just because he by far prefers Gryffindor over Slytherin. Luna does the same in Half-Blood Prince as when Ravenclaw aren't playing, she wears her lion hat and supports Gryffindor.

I would think McGonagall actually makes quite a good Gryffindor Head of House because she's also unafraid to defend the oppressed, such as Trelawney against Umbridge and all the students against Headmaster Snape.

In Lupin's case you have to remember that he is badly affected by his werewolf curse. If he hadn't been bitten by that werewolf, he may have been a far braver person.

Additionally he isn't afraid to sacrifice himself during the Battle of Hogwarts which is of course extremely brave.

Yep, I agree with this one, Pettigrew certainly is a treacherous coward and will crawl after anyone willing to use him as a servant, whether James' gang of friends/bullies or Voldemort's Death Eaters.

Percy would have been an example of a good Slytherin character, because as you say he's desperate to reach the top of the school hierarchy yet he also defends the school rules.

The rest of the Weasleys fit in Gryndor pretty well, at least the kids. I think Arthur Weasley and Molly Weasley lean slightly toward Hufflepuff, but I guess anyone family oriented would lean that way as adults. Then again, the unique form of Molly Weasley boggart signifies bravery. In my opinion people who fear for their loved ones far more than they fear for themselves are very brave indeed.

And we also get to see this classic scene involving Mrs Weasley in Deathly Hallows part II that signifies how brave she is:

That would have been another interesting idea - some kids in each house representing the house's bad side. We already know Slytherin's evil; side because most Slytherins are portrayed as evil. Crabbe and Goyle as you say would be good evil Hufflepuffs, being steadfastly loyal to evil causes. Evil Gryffindors would be like the Ares cabin in Percy Jackson as you mention below - thuggish, violent and brutal but also brave. Evil Ravenclaws would be extremely intelligent, manipulative and cunning, pretty much like Palpatine, Lord Shen or a classic Bond villain.

I'd agree here except with the Aphrodite cabin - they have nothing to contribute except their good looks and talent at make-up artistry, neither of which are much use when defending Camp Half-Blood against an army of monsters and Titans. But then, everyone tolerates them probably because they are so physically attractive, even if they are all complete airheads, because of modern society's superficiality.

Apart from being named after one of Hogwarts' founders and having to exist as a result, the main reason Slytherin House is still around is because of what you said here:

And as you say here:

Rowling should have done more to introduce 'good' Slytherin characters.

This would have been good, Garak is a great character and I like how though he fluctuates between being good and evil he ultimately chooses good and frees Cardassia from the Dominion (and becomes its leader in a novel set after the series ends). They should have done this with a Slytherin character, perhaps even getting Draco Malfoy to choose the good side after Voldemort snubs him instead of him just skedaddling when the fighting gets real.

I agree here. I've read the main Percy Jackson saga and the first two books of Heroes of Olympus, but I'm struggling to maintain enthusiasm for it because he's just writing new stuff too quickly. I also have The Red Pyramid but haven't read it yet, and I'm completely avoiding Magnus Chase because it's a repeat of Percy Jackson just with Norse gods, and Francesca Simon's Mortal Gods series does modern Norse mythology better.

The Percy Jackson universe is decent, but personally I would rate Harry Potter over it because Harry Potter has more gravitas and more structure to the universe, creatures and background, while Percy Jackson has a very 'winging it by the seat of your trousers' feel about it at times. Riordan often seems to press the 'Insert Random Greek Mythological Creature' button whenever the heroes reach another American tourist location, rather than there being any sort of written lore about where each of these monsters is most likely to lurk, because each creature would naturally have a chosen habitat.

I would disagree with this quote because if this were true, bad boys should be loved because they have loads of flaws, and as you know I am on a mission to expose bad boy types for what they are - immature, infantile weaklings who deserve no truly respectable girl's love.

I personally prefer the expression that you should love someone for their good traits, but also accept their flaws, because of course people are human and have their faults.


As an aside we can also talk about the Fantastic Beasts movies here too because they're part of the Wizarding World. What do you all think of those?

 

Well now I don't have to do my big rant/deconstruction of the sorting hat and stuff. My only stuff to add came up in conversation with my only close friend that has read the books and watched the films (also she has terrible judgment and no ability to guage whether something is good or not, and I don't just mean opinion, I mean she really can't see how Crimes of Grindlewald might not be the best film and there are many other things which I won't go into detail of so just take my word for it). She was talking about a fanfic she had been reading (I don't hate fanfic altogether as there's some pretty high quality stuff out there, but this is generic teenage girl fanfic so), and apparantly it is canon that Slitheren and Hufflepuff often mix and there are friendships that spawn out of the loyalty and protectiveness or something, I dunno, and in the fanfiction the slitheren characters get 'flesed out' in a very fanfic way and it turns out that it's cause they all have terrible relationships with their parents and have childhood trauma that they're the way they are. But why though...?

I totally get that trauma shapes people and relationships shape people, but saying that not only does trauma only create arseholes, arseholes become slitheren doesn't make sense. I know this example is taking fanfic to seriously, but it's a common enough feeling that all Slitheren are arses, so instead of making them not that, we just use past trauma to justify it. As @Scalenex said, not all ambition is bad, so why aren't steps taken to show that?

I said to my friend that in taking steps to de-generalise and de-stereotype different houses, we've just created new stereotypes, and I made a really good point about somethiing or rather that I've since forgotten, but I'm sure it was insightful and relevant.

First of all, thought you said Lestrade and got really hyped for a Sherlok/Harey Potter cross over.
Second of all, here's the thing. I haven't read the books, so there must be something I'm missing and I'm just ignorant, so please let me know all you people who read the books/know more than me...:
Avada Kadavra is an unforgiveable curse, right, but it seems like one of the most humane ways to kill someone. Cause yeah, burning someone alive until they aren't alive seems... horrible, and then you can cast spells without a wand (kinda. Like Harry blowing up his Aunt or whatever in Prisoner of Azkaban), so why is it such a big deal? and yeah, what did Bellatrix die of? Surely there would have been more efficient ways to kill people, not necesarilly on the good guys side, as they would lack the will and determination to kill a bunch of randos, but the Deatheathers and people who kill a lot anyway surely would've put something together now?
Crucio curse I get why it's unforgiveable, thought there would be other ways of torturing with magic without using it, Imperius makes sense, yadda ya.
Thoughts on a 'killing curse' though?

 

Again this is all arising out of the bad boy myth, where the Slytherin is the bad person (often male in fanfics) that ‘needs help’ and the Hufflepuff (usually a female in fanfics) thinks they can heal them by being loyal and friendly and kind to them as typical Hufflepuffs are, when all that will actually happen is the Hufflepuff will just be abused by the Slytherin forever. Given that you say it is a typical ‘teenage girl fanfic’, it probably uses @Scalenex’s idea of the ‘taming the beast’ power fantasy which never works out well in real life.

As I’ve mentioned before, it is my mission to try and expose this trope for the tripe that it is.

It generally tends to be two types of girl that fall for the ‘bad boy’ figure - the girl who has been abused by a previous partner and misattributes the fear she feels toward her partner for arousal (as fear and arousal both use the same hormone, adrenaline) and the emotionally immature girl who hasn’t learned what the right qualities for a long-term partner are and don’t realise that actually bad boys are very weak people on the inside, because they are selfish, arrogant and bullying. Neither of these types are really ready for a full-on relationship because they need to work on themselves first (the former needs to spend time healing their trauma, and the latter needs to simply grow up a bit).

Any safe, sane and stable girl on the other hand should ignore what’s on the outside and look for a man that is similarly safe, sane and stable and has a lot in common with them on the inside. Someone who truly loves and cares for them and at the same time has the inner strength to be comfortable and confident with who they are and what they want.

Yep, the author of the fanfic has made the same mistake Rowling has, in that they’re vilifying pretty much all Slytherins. I certainly think that instead there should have been bad people in all the houses who embody the negative traits of that house as mentioned before.

Avada Kedavra is unforgivable because it’s murder, like shooting someone with a gun or stabbing them with a sword is murder. It doesn’t matter if they die instantly and relatively painlessly, it’s still murder.

 

I moreso meant that there are other curses that can kill, but they are not classified as unforgivable, as such.