Harry, did you put your name in the Goblet of Fire? You asked one of the older students to do it for you?

>fantastic beasts 3
I'm so excited about this. Lets have a thread where we tell Warner Brothers™ about our best memories about the series.

>An adaptation can't alter details
One of the dumbest complaints ever.

Thr contrast is still fucking hilarious put side by side

10/10

It would have been much better if Rowling's manuscripts could have been taken from her and thrown in the goblet of fire, saving us from 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.

Attached: 1405480492811.jpg (1634x2893, 555K)

>can't make a lighthearded comparison between the book and the movie without an HP fan getting defensive

How do we save western culture from parasites like OP and his tumblr ilk?

Attached: 1485502911760.jpg (1114x1440, 453K)

>lighthearded

Attached: 1566291490242.jpg (800x800, 55K)

this is fresh

It's a joke you autist

He said calmly

Good intro.

D R O P P E D
R
O
P
P
E
D

Attached: HARRYPOTTER-actors.png (976x1972, 1.56M)

You can make changes, but the question is should you? You can make changes for better or worse. Dumbledore acting like a spaz isn't a change for the better, but then the goblet of fire movie was a garbage fire in the first place.

Care to make a point?

>ACCIO W88!!!!!
explain pls

>but the question is should you?
The HP movies were unironically better than the books. JK Rowling is a hack.