Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    Arry Potta
    • As PROFESSOR Dumbledore, Michael Gambon leaves a bit to be desired, yeah, but as the WARRIOR Dumbledore I think he does fantastic. Richard Harris is the perfect Dumbledore for the early films, capturing the whimsy and wisdom we expect, but I have trouble imagining him the Dumbledore we're introduced to in the latter half: one who goes toe to toe with Voldemort in a duel, who makes him feel fear and forces him to retreat.


      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    • I'm inclined to agree Mike; I did prefer Richard Harris but I do believe the strength wasn't there.
      Michael Gambon had that, but there was something about the more gentler side that he didn't capture.

      Dumbledore never seemed like someone who needed to forcibly show his strength. To me it just radiated from him even when he remained calm, and I felt Gambon didn't play this the way I had envisioned it. He was more obvious and harsh with his power. I don't think the book Dumbledore was obvious; in fact, I think he was quite the opposite. That was the x-factor about Dumbledore.
      You knew he had this power just surrounding him, and it didn't need to be outwardly shown (almost) ever.


      "Defense against the dark farts, am I right?" -Pennington
      | This spot reserved for Dark Link Reigns |


    • Silver wrote:

      Pretty much the only movie I remember being better than (or even coming close to) the book was the fifth one, which I remember cut out a lot of the bullshit. I haven't watched or read Harry Potter in a long time though, maybe my opinion would change if I revisited them.

      On the whole though, yeah, as Ruki said the books are exponentially better.
      The first movie is the only one that nearly fully captivates the magic of the book, all the others are varying degrees of nope.
      "Can't post that on a Christian forum."
    • Hey guys!

      So this is HP related - @Silver and I went to the NY Historical Museum on Saturday to see "A History of Magic" which was an exhibit about just that, all featuring Harry Potter. The exhibit was broken down into rooms, each featuring a different class subject in the HP world. They had potions, herbology, divination, charms, and care of magical creatures, to name a few. They included historical museum objects - such as the oldest star chart from china, ancient ruins from tribes, a broomstick from the 1400's theorized to be used by witches in Salem.

      But my all-time favorite things they showed were edited manuscripts from J.K Rowling - they had segments of chapters and stories never used in the final publications of Harry Potter, one of which had Fudge as a Muggle meeting Hagrid and discussing Voldemort whose description matched more of a dwarf-life creature. And there was amazing amazing amazing art. J.K. did these beautiful intimate character renderings, all with pen on paper, showing her visualizations of Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, Dean, Nearly Headless Nick, and Hagrid. It was so cool seeing her original ideas before they came to life for the public eye. Jim Kay, the book artist, also had large pencil sketches of different scenes and characters- my all time favorite being a detailed sketch of Lupin leaning against his desk at Hogwarts. I wish pictures had been allowed x-x

      Plus their gift shop was actually not bad at all - ended up with an Undesirable No.1 poster, a Pigwidgeon Christmas ornament, and a couple other things for gifts. I rate this 8/10 - only points lost is for crowd management because wow, it was hard to get through the exhibit and slightly dampered what was an amazingggg experience. If you guys come to NY before mid-January I would highly suggest going.


      "Defense against the dark farts, am I right?" -Pennington
      | This spot reserved for Dark Link Reigns |


    • Please Understand wrote:

      Silver wrote:

      Pretty much the only movie I remember being better than (or even coming close to) the book was the fifth one, which I remember cut out a lot of the bullshit. I haven't watched or read Harry Potter in a long time though, maybe my opinion would change if I revisited them.

      On the whole though, yeah, as Ruki said the books are exponentially better.
      The first movie is the only one that nearly fully captivates the magic of the book, all the others are varying degrees of nope.
      Nice, I thought I was the only one who thinks that. I would add that the second one is pretty good too, but from the 3rd movie on there is a drastic decrease in quality and comprehensibility. The last two are pretty awkwardly bad.
      A dark chase requires a silent hound, and deep roots are not reached by the frost.
    • GregariousTree wrote:

      Nice, I thought I was the only one who thinks that. I would add that the second one is pretty good too, but from the 3rd movie on there is a drastic decrease in quality and comprehensibility. The last two are pretty awkwardly bad.
      To me the movies after the first one just feel too edgy and dark. The last two books as well, but they are by far my least favorite, so....
      "Can't post that on a Christian forum."
    • it gets better because it's clarified later that the vanishing spell is something only 5th years learn because it is complex

      aka 11 - 14 year olds are shitting themselves or maybe on the floor(?? I have never followed the pottermore link so it's unclear to me) and it gets left there until later when someone cleans it up lol


      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    • Can you imagine though? Like a bunch of wizards hanging out with some muggles and suddenly they just drop a shit on the floor right in front of them. And the poor muggle bastards are like


      And the poor bastards need to explain the concepts of basic sanitation to them being like "dude this was a thing back in the Roman era, what sort of dumb fucking rock have you been living under." And this is how bathrooms were brought up to speed.

      :heart: Rinn “Arwyn” Nailo drawn by Liah :heart:
      Rakshael: if I know one thing about Ruki, it's that she'll prove you wrong just for the sake of saying she did it
      Characters | The Time Lost | The Rumors We Believe | Ruki's Reviews
    • Honestly, I thought the canonicity of it had been confirmed years ago. Like, not even a year after the final book didn't she confirm that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald?


      Still, I'm a bit mixed on this extra lore from JKR. On the one hand, it's usually in response to interview/fan questions, she's not just popping up out of nowhere to say things. On the other hand, she handled "Dumbledore is gay" poorly by not putting it actually in the books and only talking about it after, which comes very close to trying to have your cake and eat it too.

      On the whole I don't mind it. Like, we were fine with her writing these stories in the first place, and then people ask her questions about them and suddenly we're supposed to be upset that she has further things to say about the world and people she created?

      I'm just not gonna give her praise or anything for it, either.

      I also don't think she's doing this to court controversy. Characters being gay...largely isn't controversial anymore. That's not to say that there's no controversy about it, but the mainstream seems significantly more accepting of it, outside of certain reactionary segments. If she wanted controversy then she could've had way more of it by putting this in the books, at a time when it was much more of a hot-button topic and when more people were paying attention to what she was saying. Or she could've chosen to retcon in something that's much more controversial at the moment.

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!