Alright. Let's be serious for a moment here. What the

James called him gay, took his lunch money and banged his crush.

>>84256042
orbiter. didn't lift. put too high a premium on pussy

>>84256042
He loved harrys mom but harrys dad (which also was his bully) married her

also dull copypasta

cancerous template thread posting mobile coward

>>84256084
wait so he was the good guy all along and in slytherin?
while the true villain of the series harry's dad was in gryffindor

does this btfo of haters saying it's too generic good and evil?

File: 81920390120.jpg (3MB, 1565x2823px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1565x2823px

I can tell you one of his problems, his greatest problem to be quite frank. He's a character in one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises. 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.

File: 1409397476411.jpg (92KB, 350x259px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 350x259px

>>84256200
Evry Tim.

Wizard Chad cucked him so hard, he spent his entire life taking care of his teenage crush's son

>>84256042
Jealous beta robot

>>84256042
he saw watson's shit tier feet. probably the only thing worse than those trash harry potter movies

File: 1497754313243.jpg (512KB, 1620x2884px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 1620x2884px

he was a masochist cuckold that watched over his ex-childhood love's husband's son and he also starred in easily one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. 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.

>>84256180
I mean doesn't Harry literally say that the cliche of Slytherin being eeeevvil is bullshit at the end of the series?

>>84256180
pettigrew was evil and in gryffindor. Dumbledore was pretty amoral as well if you look into it

File: 492cd9c43c849e4a09561a4a37851672fa05c185bc94366154e029fd19455781.jpg (1MB, 1623x2886px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1623x2886px

His problem was that he was a world-class actor stuck in one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. 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.

>>84257253
>>84256454
>>84256200

>"No!"

Why is this part always in quotation?

>>84256200
>the envelope part

Every time.

>>84257253

>brothers karamazov
>god-tier

I cringe every fucking time I see that

>>84256042
woman wrote the character.

Honestly, the movies handled Snape better. Gave him more moments where he's protecting the kids (like when he guarded Harry and his friends from werewolf Lupin) and moments where he's a cunt to them become more subtle, so the "He was a good guy all along" reveal is more easy to swallow.

>>84256042
He saw both the woman he loved and the man he hated in Harry and it caused conflicting emotions within him