I've never understood why people memed on this scene in particular. It's genuinely one of the most authentic examples of traumatic grief I've ever seen on film. May not have been a big role but the guy really sold it
Do the books get as edgy as the movies do? I just rewatched them last month because my gf is an normie that loves HP and I never noticed how edgy the last 2 movies are, it almost is at a whiplash pace too. Do the books get that bleak that suddenly or is it more nuanced?
>Do the books get that bleak that suddenly
nah, the books ( - the ya romance) are better but OoP is kind of shit in the first half where harry just keeps yapping in ALL CAPS
>the books are better
They arent. A bunch (hundreds of pages) of pointless filler between them.
If Rowling wasnt a female chud, and this place wasnt filled with mommy issues menchilds, everyone in this place would say how shit of a writter she is
Well she definitely isn't a good writer, but that pointless filler is what builds the actual feel of the world which is all Harry Potter has going for it. Only the first movie remotely succeeds at this.
It's like Lord of the Rings, there's a whole lotta walking, but that's the point. In the movies you just go from setpiece to setpiece, there's no sense of journey or world building there whatsoever.
I haven't read it since 8th grade, but I remember a big chunk of the last book just being like "we don't even know where to begin so we just stay in the move and make no progress". I'm sure that part could be described as boring or meandering but I remember that making it feel claustrophobic and anxious, which is good. Nobody is coming to save the day, the adults you thought knew everything have failed to leave you with a path forward, just keep at it and hope you get lucky.
so Harry was linked with Voldemort, right? what are the chances they both agreed to kill Cedric, even on a subconscious level, so they can get Chon Chong pussy
That's not your boy - that's 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.
I'M IN MY PRIME
cedric deserved to get yeeted ngl
this. he was an insufferable little gay in the books
SHEEEEEEEEEEESH
fr fr no cap on God
THATS MY SOOOOOON
HES MY WIVES SOOOOOON
THAT'S MY BOOooooOOOOoooOOY
i wonder what's for dinner?
I've never understood why people memed on this scene in particular. It's genuinely one of the most authentic examples of traumatic grief I've ever seen on film. May not have been a big role but the guy really sold it
the whole movie is over-acted to frick and its just one of many performances that make the movie different
>Why are you here? All of you?
>We never left. We’re the ghosts of everyone who died for you.
>Oh. Cool… where’s Cedric?
cedric was an athetist and is burning in hell forever
Cedric didn't die for him, he died because of him
>because of him
harry did nothing
Cedric was busy haunting Cho Chang's pussy
He WAS in that scene though
>Take my body back, Harry
That was in the 4th movie. He’s conveniently absent in the last one
im guessing twilight was happening so Pattinson was expensive
Do the books get as edgy as the movies do? I just rewatched them last month because my gf is an normie that loves HP and I never noticed how edgy the last 2 movies are, it almost is at a whiplash pace too. Do the books get that bleak that suddenly or is it more nuanced?
Dunno I can’t read.
>Do the books get that bleak that suddenly
nah, the books ( - the ya romance) are better but OoP is kind of shit in the first half where harry just keeps yapping in ALL CAPS
>the books are better
They arent. A bunch (hundreds of pages) of pointless filler between them.
If Rowling wasnt a female chud, and this place wasnt filled with mommy issues menchilds, everyone in this place would say how shit of a writter she is
Well she definitely isn't a good writer, but that pointless filler is what builds the actual feel of the world which is all Harry Potter has going for it. Only the first movie remotely succeeds at this.
It's like Lord of the Rings, there's a whole lotta walking, but that's the point. In the movies you just go from setpiece to setpiece, there's no sense of journey or world building there whatsoever.
I haven't read it since 8th grade, but I remember a big chunk of the last book just being like "we don't even know where to begin so we just stay in the move and make no progress". I'm sure that part could be described as boring or meandering but I remember that making it feel claustrophobic and anxious, which is good. Nobody is coming to save the day, the adults you thought knew everything have failed to leave you with a path forward, just keep at it and hope you get lucky.
IS THAT MY WIFE'S DAUGHTER, FORMERLY SON IN THERE?!
HARRYDIDYOUPUTYOURPENISINTHEGOBLETOFFIRE?!?!?
Yo that's my video I'm flattered someone found it funny enough to repost
so Harry was linked with Voldemort, right? what are the chances they both agreed to kill Cedric, even on a subconscious level, so they can get Chon Chong pussy
In the end they both wanted to slyther-in
That's not your boy - that's 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.