>Disgusting, large nosed, short, stout, greedy, unfriendly

OY VEY

>>86311991
Thats just the common stereotype for greed
Makes you think

File: JK_Rowling_Nazi.jpg (20KB, 267x400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 267x400px

>>86311991
I think we all know why.

>>86311991
It was a different time.

File: 1501710434999.jpg (548KB, 1616x2896px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1616x2896px

Everyone was too busy thinking about it being 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.

>>86312064
>yfw Voldermort was the good guy

>>86312142
>yfw malfoy was a german

>>86311991
there was a star of david tiled in the middle of the floor in gringotts

File: Capture.png (393KB, 401x397px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 401x397px

>>86312241
well ok this isn't even funny now that it's so obvious

>>86312323
>>86312241
They changed it for the final movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwPIaGKgYik

>"They're goblins, Harry. Clever as they come, goblins, but not the most friendly of beasts."
Seems a bit weird, I guess it's just a coincidence...

>"We are talking about a different breed of being. Dealings between wizards and goblins have been fraught for centuries ... There has been fault on both sides, I would never claim that wizards have been innocent. However, there is a belief among some goblins, and those at Gringotts are perhaps most prone to it, that wizards cannot be trusted in matters of gold and treasure, that they have no respect for goblin ownership."
Well, I mean...

>"Gold, filthy gold! We cannot live without it, yet I confess I deplore the necessity of consorting with our long-fingered friends."
Er...

>Bill Weasley : "To a goblin, the rightful and true master of any object is the maker, not the purchaser. All goblin-made objects are, in goblin eyes, rightfully theirs."
Harry Potter: "But if it was bought —"
Bill Weasley : "— then they would consider it rented by the one who had paid the money. They have, however, great difficulty with the idea of goblin-made objects passing from wizard to wizard. They consider our habit of keeping goblin-made objects, passing them from wizard to wizard without further payment, little more than theft."
Oh come on now

>>86311991
It was a different time

>>86312456
wtf I hate the cuckoldry censorship of modern liberal progressive society now