1. I'm a Ravenclaw. Pottermore verified, but I knew it from the first moment I read the descriptions of each house. I became even more convinced as the series continued. And, FFFC, JKR's portrayal always kind of irritated me because:
2. Luna is my favorite character, followed closely by Professor McGonagall and Molly Weasley. I can't relate to Luna in any way, but I love her hard for some undefinable reason.
3. Conversely, Delores Umbridge is my least favorite character, followed very, very closely by Bellatrix LeStrange and Narcissa Malfoy, who are tied.
4. Regarding theories: I love hearing them and considering them, but I automatically dismiss some of them (like Hogwarts all being in Harry's head) because they hurt my heart too much.
5. My favorite moment in the movies is this:
I bawled like a baby the first time, and I still get goosebumps everytime I watch it. I had a similar reaction when I watched this scene in Guardians of the Galaxy:
What can I say? I'm a sucker for the power of community.
Edited to fix my broken gifs.
I want to luv tit every fucking thing in this post. EVERY. FUCKING. THING!
Do you really love pink and cardigans? I would never picture that on you! (Not that it's a bad thing at all, just not what I expected.)
95% of my wardrobe is pink in all varieties of shades. And I live for cardigans. I own way too many.
Dare I ask what you expected?
It's more that I just never expected us to have something in common. I love wearing pink (but it doesn't look great on me, so I only have a few pieces more on the coral end of the spectrum), and I luuurrrve me a good cardigan. I wear one almost every day, because...New England. My winter look is Cardigan + Scarf 95% of the time. Kinda like this:
I'm Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff too. My favorite would probably be Hermione, Tonks, or Luna. We have so many names we want to use for kids. I had to veto Bellatrix though, DNW my daughter named after a murderous witch that was obsessed with a Dark Lord. Eta: My kids and I watch this at least once a week... youtu.be/zbdvogFyZZM
Still catching up. Damn work getting in the way of an HP thread!
I LOVE Dark Lord Funk. I listen to it all the time still too.
I'm a Ravenclaw, verified by Porter more (multiple times, because I'm a nerd that likes to take surveys).
Favorite character: Dobby. I cried so hard when he died. I had been reading in my room when I got to part. I was crying so hard that I had to take a break and went out to the living room. My mom saw me crying and banished me to my room before I gave anything away. She was waiting for me to finish the book so she could read it.
Least favorite character (other than Umbridge): Filch. He drove me nuts.
Favorite book: Deathly Hallows. So. Much. Crying.
Favorite movie moment: when Hermione punched Draco. I fucking love that scene. A close second is when Dobby is freed (I cry happy tears every time, it makes up for the rest of the second movie).
Met in May 2011 Engaged November 2011 Married November 2013 Started TTC November 2015 Began Infertility Workup November 2016 BFP! Lucky #13 Cycle TTC Due Date: 9/5/2017
I hate the revisionism. And I ship Hermione/a twin, so no to Harry/Hermione, lol. Honestly, Hedwig gutted me, but none were worse than Fred. Partly because it was convenient/obvious and partly because a twin and partly because Ron should have died.
There . I said it.
WHAT?! Explain yourself.
But agree so hard about Fred. I had such a crush on Fred and George.
Ok, I haven't caught up, but just got home. So, here's my reasoning.
Ron was frequently at odds with Harry, right? Ruled by jealousy and envious of Harry's money and fame and never understanding that he himself embodied/had everything Harry most wanted - stability, a loving family, full access to magic all the time. His immaturity is what frequently stands between them, right?
Remember what Ron sees in the Mirror of Erised? He sees himself as Quidditch Captain, holding the house cup, and as Head Boy - essentially, his 11-year-old conception of the most famous, the most successful of all the Weasley brothers, or even as the quintessential best Gryffindor (because he has all the top positions that can be achieved at Hogwarts.
So it's really highly unlikely that all three of the trio live, right? I mean, that's the rationale behind several of the deaths, that it's unrealistic for everyone to live during war. And Ron was originally supposed to be killed earlier on, but JKR apparently didn't have the heart to go through with it (same as with Mr. Weasley, resulting later in Sirius' death - Ron being saved ultimately meant Fred had to die). Because she didn't kill him in book 6, he ended up destined to live throughout because at that point, she couldn't bring herself to kill the trio. Of the three, Ron's death makes the most thematic sense. Hermione is Harry's conscience, and she grounds him. It's reasonable to suggest that without her, Harry would be lost. And she is tortured, so at least she doesn't escape unscathed. Harry of course, as the hero, can't die - or at least can't stay dead, because he's the Christ-figure. That leaves Ron as the most likely candidate.
More than that though, as they grow and change throughout the series, Ron is the one who seems to have the hardest time maturing. He is the most affected by the locket, but he has the strongest reactions, finally culminating in his (once again) abandoning Harry when he most needs him (forcing Harry to be self-reliant). He returns, and is forgiven, but really - can he be trusted again? Theoretically, his death could prove the ultimate loyalty - if he had died, especially if it had been heriocally saving Harry when he could have saved himself, we would have seen the full maturation of Ron. We would have seen Ron embracing his 11-year-old fantasy - of being the highest, most noble Gryffindor, filled with bravery and chivalry and courage and loyalty. His death would have been redemption.
I think it would have been braver writing to have killed one of the trio, and of them, it would have had to have been Ron.
I hate the revisionism. And I ship Hermione/a twin, so no to Harry/Hermione, lol. Honestly, Hedwig gutted me, but none were worse than Fred. Partly because it was convenient/obvious and partly because a twin and partly because Ron should have died.
There . I said it.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Fine. I will sit over here in the "I love Ron" corner.
I don't hate Ron! I'm not a Ron basher. But I do think Ron should have died instead of Fred.
But agree so hard about Fred. I had such a crush on Fred and George.
Ok, I haven't caught up, but just got home. So, here's my reasoning.
Ron was frequently at odds with Harry, right? Ruled by jealousy and envious of Harry's money and fame and never understanding that he himself embodied/had everything Harry most wanted - stability, a loving family, full access to magic all the time. His immaturity is what frequently stands between them, right?
Remember what Ron sees in the Mirror of Erised? He sees himself as Quidditch Captain, holding the house cup, and as Head Boy - essentially, his 11-year-old conception of the most famous, the most successful of all the Weasley brothers, or even as the quintessential best Gryffindor (because he has all the top positions that can be achieved at Hogwarts.
So it's really highly unlikely that all three of the trio live, right? I mean, that's the rationale behind several of the deaths, that it's unrealistic for everyone to live during war. And Ron was originally supposed to be killed earlier on, but JKR apparently didn't have the heart to go through with it (same as with Mr. Weasley, resulting later in Sirius' death - Ron being saved ultimately meant Fred had to die). Because she didn't kill him in book 6, he ended up destined to live throughout because at that point, she couldn't bring herself to kill the trio. Of the three, Ron's death makes the most thematic sense. Hermione is Harry's conscience, and she grounds him. It's reasonable to suggest that without her, Harry would be lost. And she is tortured, so at least she doesn't escape unscathed. Harry of course, as the hero, can't die - or at least can't stay dead, because he's the Christ-figure. That leaves Ron as the most likely candidate.
More than that though, as they grow and change throughout the series, Ron is the one who seems to have the hardest time maturing. He is the most affected by the locket, but he has the strongest reactions, finally culminating in his (once again) abandoning Harry when he most needs him (forcing Harry to be self-reliant). He returns, and is forgiven, but really - can he be trusted again? Theoretically, his death could prove the ultimate loyalty - if he had died, especially if it had been heriocally saving Harry when he could have saved himself, we would have seen the full maturation of Ron. We would have seen Ron embracing his 11-year-old fantasy - of being the highest, most noble Gryffindor, filled with bravery and chivalry and courage and loyalty. His death would have been redemption.
I think it would have been braver writing to have killed one of the trio, and of them, it would have had to have been Ron.
Met in May 2011 Engaged November 2011 Married November 2013 Started TTC November 2015 Began Infertility Workup November 2016 BFP! Lucky #13 Cycle TTC Due Date: 9/5/2017
I also like Book 5 the most. I think it's because Umbridge is such a shitty person the storyline just draws you in and you really root for the main characters and want her to suffer. I like to think of Book 5 as the empathy book, you already love the main characters, but you bond with them because their feelings are your own. You can relate to them.
Plus Angry Harry is the best.
There is a lot I like about OotP, but angsty Harry is not among them. I hated reading it, and reading about Dumbledore avoiding him and just perpetually smacked my head against the metaphorical wall over and over. Though a friend pointed out that it was, in fact, an accurate picture of teenage angst.
As for the movie - again, a lot to love, but I never liked David Yates' direction. Alfonso Cuaran and Mike Newell got better performances from the cast and I thought had better finished products. And Steven Kloves' scripts could be absolutely infuriating, though I recognize the difficulty involved in redacting such massive stories to two hour feature films while keeping enough of certain details intact to be able to tell a complicated story on screen later. Still. There was ample opportunity to show some things that I felt were cut for special effects. Grrr.
Hermione and Ginny were always favorites of mine. But not movie Ginny. She was lame. I keep trying to talk my H into naming the baby Hermione if it's a girl. ETA: Also Neville. I always related to Neville. I'm never one of the cool kids either.
I love Ginny in the books. They really screwed that character over in the movies. And her relationship with Harry.
To be fair, I don't think Bonnie's talents lie in acting. She wasn't the worst ever, but she wasn't fabulous either. There was a serious lack of chemistry between Bonnie and Dan. But yeah, the writing fucked up the Harry/Ginny storyline so. much. and it sucked because Ginny and loving her was so central to Harry's motivations - she was what he was thinking of when Voldemort killed him, for fuck's sake.
JKR has said she wanted to kill Ron originally but changed her mind. Fred died instead.
She also has recently said Hermione would have never been happy with Ron and should have been with Harry. (I don't agree. Harry should have been with Ginny. Maybe Hermione should have been with Percy since he stopped being such a "git")
Speaking of things the movies messed up, I hate that the Harry/Sirius relationship was cut down so much. Love them in the books.
I think that would have been interesting, but sophomore in college me could not have handled that on top of everything else in book 7, so I'm glad she changed her mind. Adult me is a lot more forgiving of authors killing off beloved characters if it makes the book better.
He was originally supposed to die in book 6, I believe. Maybe book 5, but I think it was supposed to be when he drank the poisoned mead.
But in the end, he lived. And they had to kill at least one Weasley. It was unrealistic for all of them to live. So, here's how it went (she's never said this, but it's how fans guessed it prior to the release of book 7):
She had already saved Arthur and killed Harry's surrogate father. Arthur lives. She wasn't going to kill Harry's surrogate mother. Molly lives. Bill and Charlie are options, but we don't know either of them especially well. Charlie is in Romania, and Bill's already been hurt in battle. There isn't huge emotional impact to the reader (and she maximizes that with her deaths, because there are relatively few of them in live action). Bill and Charlie live. Percy is an interesting candidate. He returns to the fold, and his death makes for a satisfying redemption arc. But people won't really miss him - he's been such an ass, and so separated from the family that his death produces the wrong emotional response - satisfaction and relief it wasn't someone else. Percy lives. Ron has already been saved and is a member of the trio - he's been destined to live. Ginny is Harry's love interest. It would be an emotional blow to kill her, but she's already escaped Voldemort once, and she represents Harry's hope for the future. Ginny lives. Well, shit, we're down to 2 Weasley's left - the twins. Well, people love them, they're funny, they have enough presence to make an emotional impact, and enough vibrancy and insouciance to discount the possibility of their death. They've just taken off with their business, they are young, carefree, successful, the perfect embodiment of the flowering youth cut tragically down. They're practically interchangeable, so we will be devestated to lose one - there's the big emotional hit - one twin lives, one twin dies . . . George has been injured gravely and irreparably already, so bam. Bye Fred! Die when a wall hits you, the smile still on your face. We'll miss you! (except in the movies, where we will barely mention it, or show it and will definitely give a much bigger moment to a creature that hasn't been around in five movies and really isn't that sad a moment. Thanks for all the memories!)
But agree so hard about Fred. I had such a crush on Fred and George.
Ok, I haven't caught up, but just got home. So, here's my reasoning.
Ron was frequently at odds with Harry, right? Ruled by jealousy and envious of Harry's money and fame and never understanding that he himself embodied/had everything Harry most wanted - stability, a loving family, full access to magic all the time. His immaturity is what frequently stands between them, right?
Remember what Ron sees in the Mirror of Erised? He sees himself as Quidditch Captain, holding the house cup, and as Head Boy - essentially, his 11-year-old conception of the most famous, the most successful of all the Weasley brothers, or even as the quintessential best Gryffindor (because he has all the top positions that can be achieved at Hogwarts.
So it's really highly unlikely that all three of the trio live, right? I mean, that's the rationale behind several of the deaths, that it's unrealistic for everyone to live during war. And Ron was originally supposed to be killed earlier on, but JKR apparently didn't have the heart to go through with it (same as with Mr. Weasley, resulting later in Sirius' death - Ron being saved ultimately meant Fred had to die). Because she didn't kill him in book 6, he ended up destined to live throughout because at that point, she couldn't bring herself to kill the trio. Of the three, Ron's death makes the most thematic sense. Hermione is Harry's conscience, and she grounds him. It's reasonable to suggest that without her, Harry would be lost. And she is tortured, so at least she doesn't escape unscathed. Harry of course, as the hero, can't die - or at least can't stay dead, because he's the Christ-figure. That leaves Ron as the most likely candidate.
More than that though, as they grow and change throughout the series, Ron is the one who seems to have the hardest time maturing. He is the most affected by the locket, but he has the strongest reactions, finally culminating in his (once again) abandoning Harry when he most needs him (forcing Harry to be self-reliant). He returns, and is forgiven, but really - can he be trusted again? Theoretically, his death could prove the ultimate loyalty - if he had died, especially if it had been heriocally saving Harry when he could have saved himself, we would have seen the full maturation of Ron. We would have seen Ron embracing his 11-year-old fantasy - of being the highest, most noble Gryffindor, filled with bravery and chivalry and courage and loyalty. His death would have been redemption.
I think it would have been braver writing to have killed one of the trio, and of them, it would have had to have been Ron.
As an adult, I can see this. That would have been brave and kind of awesome. Ron didn't really get a good ending.
But OMG, teenage me reading those all for the first time, could not have handled that. Book 6 and 7 were hard enough as is.
Pottermore made me Gryffindor, but I'd be Ravenclaw. My favorite characters were Lupin and the fake Mad Eye Moody.
Really would have liked to have seen Draco have a change of heart. I think he was the way he was because his dad's an asshole and I think he could have moved past that at Hogwarts in the later years. The tipping point being because he fell in love with Hermione would have been amazing.
Ron's a whiny loser. He's totally dead weight.
OH EM GEE. I always secretly wanted this to happen somehow! I just thought the whole, "Yeah! Your dad hated me when he first met me because Gran and Gramps were Muggles." and "Well, your mom punched me in the nose when we were kids, so I think we were even." stories for their kids would have been so great. And also? I'm a big sucker for redemption. I just am, and I can't help but want it for everyone...except Umbridge and Bellatrix.
Favorite movie moment? Harry drunk on Felix Felicis
I die every time.
That did not suck, but I'd've have traded it (or cut the scene by 5 minutes, because it's fucking long) for two more minutes in Fred and George's shop. I realize that the scene isn't long in the book either, but they spent 18 months building that set, handcut piece by handcut piece, and coming up with so many products and you get 30 seconds of it in the movie.
I think that would have been interesting, but sophomore in college me could not have handled that on top of everything else in book 7, so I'm glad she changed her mind. Adult me is a lot more forgiving of authors killing off beloved characters if it makes the book better.
He was originally supposed to die in book 6, I believe. Maybe book 5, but I think it was supposed to be when he drank the poisoned mead.
But in the end, he lived. And they had to kill at least one Weasley. It was unrealistic for all of them to live. So, here's how it went (she's never said this, but it's how fans guessed it prior to the release of book 7):
She had already saved Arthur and killed Harry's surrogate father. Arthur lives. She wasn't going to kill Harry's surrogate mother. Molly lives. Bill and Charlie are options, but we don't know either of them especially well. Charlie is in Romania, and Bill's already been hurt in battle. There isn't huge emotional impact to the reader (and she maximizes that with her deaths, because there are relatively few of them in live action). Bill and Charlie live. Percy is an interesting candidate. He returns to the fold, and his death makes for a satisfying redemption arc. But people won't really miss him - he's been such an ass, and so separated from the family that his death produces the wrong emotional response - satisfaction and relief it wasn't someone else. Percy lives. Ron has already been saved and is a member of the trio - he's been destined to live. Ginny is Harry's love interest. It would be an emotional blow to kill her, but she's already escaped Voldemort once, and she represents Harry's hope for the future. Ginny lives. Well, shit, we're down to 2 Weasley's left - the twins. Well, people love them, they're funny, they have enough presence to make an emotional impact, and enough vibrancy and insouciance to discount the possibility of their death. They've just taken off with their business, they are young, carefree, successful, the perfect embodiment of the flowering youth cut tragically down. They're practically interchangeable, so we will be devestated to lose one - there's the big emotional hit - one twin lives, one twin dies . . . George has been injured gravely and irreparably already, so bam. Bye Fred! Die when a wall hits you, the smile still on your face. We'll miss you! (except in the movies, where we will barely mention it, or show it and will definitely give a much bigger moment to a creature that hasn't been around in five movies and really isn't that sad a moment. Thanks for all the memories!)
Except I still sobbed like crazy when it happened. Still cry every time I watch the movie. My emotions didn't need it dragged out. He was the most painful of all the deaths to me. Probably followed by Tonks and Lupin since they had just had Teddy.
Post by anonymouseliza on Jun 5, 2015 22:46:27 GMT -5
Tonks and Lupin were right up there (all the book 7 deaths were painful), but Tonks was stupid, so I was super irritated. Lupin, as the last remaining father-ish figure and last of the Mauraders probably had to go symbolically, so Harry could be the godfather Sirius never could be. But . . . he could still do that with a living Tonks. I thought was overt and clumsy mirroring that wasn't necessary.
Doby's death was super awkward. Too many feels. Literally wanted to leave the movie theater. I think I did for a bit.
Dobby's death in the book destroyed me. I had to stop reading I was crying so hard. In the movie? I laughed. People were bawling, and I couldn't stop laughing. Half the reason Dobby's death is so affecting is because we see him and have a relationship with him in the other books - he saves Harry in the Triwizard Tournament, we see his adoration of Harry, his care of Winky, his oddball little self that likes mismatched socks and wears all Hermione's knitted hats on top of each other and cleans the entire Gryffindor tower himself because the other elves are so uncomfortable. Then keeping Kreacher in line and spying on Malfoy, and then saving them . . . heart rending.
In the movie, he just randomly reappears for a few minutes and I'm supposed to be moved? Whatever. He was an annoying little cgi fucker in the movies. I know people were projecting their knowledge of Dobby and love into that moment. But it was one of the things that I simply would have done very differently in the last movies. I definitely would have spent more time on Fred, simply because we knew him - he was there in every movie. And in the book, it's a pivotal moment for Harry. Galvanizing. I was SO dreading that moment in the movie, and it was literally blink and you miss it, and I remember sitting there, wincing, clutching tissues and then feeling rising anger. I'm so glad we had a five+ minute conversation with the Grey Lady, filled with riddles instead of thirty seconds to sit with Fred's death, really, I am.
Doby's death was super awkward. Too many feels. Literally wanted to leave the movie theater. I think I did for a bit.
Dobby's death in the book destroyed me. I had to stop reading I was crying so hard. In the movie? I laughed. People were bawling, and I couldn't stop laughing. Half the reason Dobby's death is so affecting is because we see him and have a relationship with him in the other books - he saves Harry in the Triwizard Tournament, we see his adoration of Harry, his care of Winky, his oddball little self that likes mismatched socks and wears all Hermione's knitted hats on top of each other and cleans the entire Gryffindor tower himself because the other elves are so uncomfortable. Then keeping Kreacher in line and spying on Malfoy, and then saving them . . . heart rending.
In the movie, he just randomly reappears for a few minutes and I'm supposed to be moved? Whatever. He was an annoying little cgi fucker in the movies. I know people were projecting their knowledge of Dobby and love into that moment. But it was one of the things that I simply would have done very differently in the last movies. I definitely would have spent more time on Fred, simply because we knew him - he was there in every movie. And in the book, it's a pivotal moment for Harry. Galvanizing. I was SO dreading that moment in the movie, and it was literally blink and you miss it, and I remember sitting there, wincing, clutching tissues and then feeling rising anger. I'm so glad we had a five+ minute conversation with the Grey Lady, filled with riddles instead of thirty seconds to sit with Fred's death, really, I am.
Movie Dobby was so poorly received that they wanted to cut Kreacher too. Apparently they ran that by Rowling, who told them that he'd be super important later on and they couldn't cut him. But their cutting of everything else House Elf really backfired in the end.
This is why they should either wait until all of the books are finished, or have the author write the movies.
FFFC- I've only seen most of the movies once. I wasn't a fan. I wish they'd remake them like they do everything else, with more cooperation from Rowling now that she's finished writing the books, but WB has sunk so much into merchandising and HP world that they will never allow remakes to happen. They've created the "look" of HP, and we're stuck with it.
To be fair, I'm a fan of the look. But the movies just didn't tell the story as well. And with all the writer/director changes, there was a massive lack of consistency.
This thread was so fun to read! I've never gotten into fan theories for HP, but it's been interesting reading about some of them here.
Pottermore sorting hat put me in Gryffindor, which was surprising since I'm usually 100% Ravenclaw. But I consider Hermione to be my spirit animal, and she's in Gryffindor, so I guess it makes sense. (though I think that she has some Ravenclaw qualities as well)
Favorite characters are Hermione, Lupin, and Sirius.
Least favorite character is Bellatrix. Therefore one of my favorite moments in the books and movies was:
Favorite book: tie between Prisoner of Azkaban and Deathly Hallows (loved them both for different reasons)
Post by anonymouseliza on Jun 5, 2015 23:34:01 GMT -5
I mean, she was there in the room giving feedback on the scripts. But she couldn't give too away (sometimes because it wasn't written yet and sometimes it was potentially key info they didn't want leaked). Some of the later scripts were clunky. What irritated me most about them, though, is that they added things unnecessarily which took time away from the central points. As cool as it was to see all the statues come to life to defend Hogwarts (and it's one of my favorite moments of movie 8), and to see Neville and Seamus blowing up the bridge and taunting the Death Eaters . . . there is like, no actual explanation of how the Order knows to show up at Hogwarts (ok, a kid who is supposedly Colin Creevey gives a radio message to someone "Lightning has struck" but it's overwhelmed by everyone greeting Harry and company. And when did the Order of the Phoenix consist of the Weasleys and three other random people you've caught glimpses of before? And exactly how did, say, 30-40 people (including students) defeat the THOUSANDS OF DARK WIZARDS lining up outside Hogwarts?
It's visually cool, but a bit of a numbers issue. I mean apart from the consistent numbers issues that cropped up repeatedly in the series.
Then Comes Family, LLC is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising
program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.