What makes Hermione Granger such a likeable character?

F R E S H
R
E
S
H

She was pretty much universally loathed across the books for being a pretentious know-it-all bitch. Even Harry and Ron frequently got fed up with her shit.

She started getting more slack later on when the characters hit puberty and suddenly everyone wanted to fuck her.

>>86560808
Tits

>>86561111
I want to fuck book 3 Hermione.

they gave all of ron's lines in the books to movie hermione

File: 1473063744424.jpg (1MB, 1623x2886px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1623x2886px

She's yet another pathetic, flat caricature in the ensemble of awful characters that inhabit 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.

>>86560808
The eyes remind me of a guy I knew in highschool. Yeah, I assfucked him. Why are you asking?
Did you seriously think even for a moment that this story wasn’t going to end with me fucking his ass? We’re obviously not working on a level of mutual respect here.
You see a fine ass like that, clothed or unclothed, you’re going to find a way to fuck it. You’ll figure out a way to lure it away from all the other asses in your classes. You’ll devise a plan to trap it in the locker room with you, watch it quiver a while in fear. You’ll relish pulling the pants and then underpants off of that ass, and then gently easing yourself into its puckered hole. You’ll cherish the memory of the long strokes you take, in and out of that ass, slowly working your way to climax. You’ll lose your mind in ecstasy as you climax deep into that ass, and then keep fucking it, pumping your own cum out of that ruined colon.
Anyways she’s a 6/10

File: 1485747020199.jpg (964KB, 1300x2345px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 1300x2345px

Because people want "safe". They want "familiar". That's why they'll pick a terrible character in one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises written for people whose imaginative lives are confined to TV cartoons, and the exaggerated (more exciting, not threatening) mirror-worlds of soaps, reality TV and celebrity gossip. 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 King

>>86560808
Her bookishness means she has a deeply suppressed craving for dick. And she knows she needs to be punished for being an insufferable know-it-all in addition to all the school rules she gets away with breaking.

>>86560808
Smart. Can banter.cute when mad. Cute when not mad. Willing to break the rules and do arson, kidnapping, drugging etc. Pretty.

>>86561111
>bookfag
She's a caricature and a mother figure towards harry. She's only percieved as that for half a book. She's a loveable sperg don't be a git.

@86561271
>armchair director and writer bookfag
Kek stop comparing everything. It is easier to write hermione a certain way and both are and were written as comic relief in the movies.