Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Fantastic Beasts and Magic in North America (POTTER MEGA THREAD!)

Mar 8, 2016#1

AshburnerX

Wasn't sure if there would be a lot of excitement over this or not so I'm sticking it in it's own thread.

So we're finally getting another Wizarding World movie this November... and later today (March 8th) we're getting the first of the 4-part series on Magic in North America. Anyone else excited?

Mar 8, 2016#2

strawman

The first part of the series is here:

https://www.pottermore.com/collection-episodic/history-of-magic-in-north-america-en

Mar 8, 2016#3

bhamv3

More Eddie Redmayne is a good thing.

Mar 9, 2016#4

AshburnerX

Piece 2: Seventeenth Century and Beyond is up at the same link as above.

Mar 9, 2016#5

AshburnerX

J.K. Rowling facing accusations of racism over including Native American mythology in "Magic in North America" series.

Not sure how I feel about this one... on the one hand, removing the context of Skinwalkers from it's culture and just saying they were Animagus cheapens what those stories were actually about. On the other hand, expecting a British person (writing a book on America from a British viewpoint) to understand the cultural differences between the literally hundreds of Native tribes when she isn't a trained sociologist is a bit much and it's unfair to single her out as undermining their on-going efforts to get the public to understand this distinction, especially when it's clear she is trying to inclusive by giving them so much focus to begin with.

Mar 9, 2016#6

bhamv3

If I were JK Rowling right now, I'd be feeling quite disillusioned.

Mar 9, 2016#7

AshburnerX

bhamv3 said:
If I were JK Rowling right now, I'd be feeling quite disillusioned.

It's not like the movies were much better... like that one Gryffindor girl who went from black girl to a blonde white girl the moment she had plot relevance.

Mar 9, 2016#8

Ravenpoe

AshburnerX said:
J.K. Rowling facing accusations of racism over including Native American mythology in "Magic in North America" series.

Not sure how I feel about this one... on the one hand, removing the context of Skinwalkers from it's culture and just saying they were Animagus cheapens what those stories were actually about. On the other hand, expecting a British person (writing a book on America from a British viewpoint) to understand the cultural differences between the literally hundreds of Native tribes when she isn't a trained sociologist is a bit much and it's unfair to single her out as undermining their on-going efforts to get the public to understand this distinction, especially when it's clear she is trying to inclusive by giving them so much focus to begin with.

Isn't all of Harry Potter pretty much a mishmash of various mythological and folklore elements borrowed from tons of different sources and cultures?

Mar 9, 2016#9

PatrThom

Ravenpoe said:
Isn't all of Harry Potter pretty much a mishmash of various mythological and folklore elements borrowed from tons of different sources and cultures?

There are those who maintain that the Potter universe is the "real" one, and that all the mythologies are just the skewed bastardizations of the regions involved.

--Patrick

Mar 9, 2016#10

Tress

A few authors online does not make an uproar. :rolleyes:

Mar 9, 2016#11

AshburnerX

Ravenpoe said:
Isn't all of Harry Potter pretty much a mishmash of various mythological and folklore elements borrowed from tons of different sources and cultures?

Yes, but most cultures have had their myths in the mainstream long enough that alterations and bastardizations are fine... the original source isn't going anywhere. Compare that to a lot of Native tribes, who have a very real threat of their traditions just disappearing in a few generations because of how few of them are still around to pass them down. That's not even getting into how difficult it is for each tribe to preserve their OWN cultural heritage without it turning into some weird amalgamation in 3 generations.

Mar 9, 2016#12

Ravenpoe

AshburnerX said:
Yes, but most cultures have had their myths in the mainstream long enough that alterations and bastardizations are fine... the original source isn't going anywhere. Compare that to a lot of Native tribes, who have a very real threat of their traditions just disappearing in a few generations because of how few of them are still around to pass them down. That's not even getting into how difficult it is for each tribe to preserve their OWN cultural heritage without it turning into some weird amalgamation in 3 generations.

I still don't see a reason for outrage. If it's ok to borrow from all these cultures, but then not this culture, my main question would be why.

Jun 29, 2016#13

AshburnerX

New short story talking about Ilvermorny School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

This one is a lot more interesting than the History of Magic in North America stuff. We get...

- Who founded the school and why
- New magical creatures
- How the school works and worked
- More!

All in all, this story is WAY better than the last one.

Jun 29, 2016#14

Sparhawk

AshburnerX said:
All in all, this story is WAY better than the last one.

Well this is more of a short story instead of a wiki entry. I think they're doing a decent job of expanding the universe without really spoiling anything for the movies.

Jun 29, 2016#15

ThatGrinningIdiot!

AshburnerX said:
J.K. Rowling facing accusations of racism over including Native American mythology in "Magic in North America" series.

Not sure how I feel about this one... on the one hand, removing the context of Skinwalkers from it's culture and just saying they were Animagus cheapens what those stories were actually about. On the other hand, expecting a British person (writing a book on America from a British viewpoint) to understand the cultural differences between the literally hundreds of Native tribes when she isn't a trained sociologist is a bit much and it's unfair to single her out as undermining their on-going efforts to get the public to understand this distinction, especially when it's clear she is trying to inclusive by giving them so much focus to begin with.

I'm so weary of Native Americans complaining about cultural appropriation, we have serious problems that require our attention instead of picking on a high profile author because she's an easy target for cry-bullies; our own elders changed the wording, meaning, and intents of their own stories many times already to articulate an idea, it's an acceptable practice so long as you credit the original story and who it came from. We're also quite fucking happy to appropriate other cultures, inventions, ideas, and yet our own people needlessly complain whenever someone else does it, that's not how it should be if freedom of speech and multiculturalism is to work.

Jun 29, 2016#16

Hailey Knight

AshburnerX said:
J.K. Rowling facing accusations of racism over including Native American mythology in "Magic in North America" series.

Not sure how I feel about this one... on the one hand, removing the context of Skinwalkers from it's culture and just saying they were Animagus cheapens what those stories were actually about. On the other hand, expecting a British person (writing a book on America from a British viewpoint) to understand the cultural differences between the literally hundreds of Native tribes when she isn't a trained sociologist is a bit much and it's unfair to single her out as undermining their on-going efforts to get the public to understand this distinction, especially when it's clear she is trying to inclusive by giving them so much focus to begin with.

JK Rowling can't see the easily viewed "it takes two minutes to notice" differences between the British and American school systems; I don't expect her understanding of Native American cultures to go far beyond Peter Pan.

Jun 30, 2016#17

Charlie Don't Surf

ThatGrinningIdiot! said:
I'm so weary of Native Americans complaining about cultural appropriation, .

hahhahahahahhah

Jun 30, 2016#18

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Charlie Don't Surf said:
hahhahahahahhah

Trololololololol!!!!11!1!1

Jun 30, 2016#19

strawman

So I suppose I'm a thunderbird. Which makes me a gryffinbird. Or a thunindor. Or thyfferdird? I don't know, it's confusing.

Interesting sorting tests now, though, much better than when they first made them. Not that they mean anything more than any other Facebook test, but obviously I got the best two so in your face all you other houses.

Jun 30, 2016#20

Bubble181

I'm a Huffled Serpent, or whatever you call that combo

Jun 30, 2016#21

AshburnerX

Thunderbird and Ravenclaw.

Jun 30, 2016#22

Hailey Knight

Numerous writers have used Native American beliefs, customs, stories, etc. for stories, mixing up elements from different peoples, and haven't gotten much flak for it. I think people now are just upset because they expected better from JK Rowling, and it's just ... why?

Jun 30, 2016#23

Charlie Don't Surf

Zero Esc said:
Numerous writers have used Native American beliefs, customs, stories, etc. for stories, mixing up elements from different peoples, and haven't gotten much flak for it. I think people now are just upset because they expected better from JK Rowling, and it's just ... why?

I don't think it is that they didn't get flak, it's just more light being shown on it these days. Trump is calling a senator "Pocahantas", people are realizing 'holy shit there's a billion dollar pro sport team called the redskins literally', and there's a general rise of awareness.

Also those writers weren't on as high a profile as JK Rowling, aka, the only author that millions of people have ever heard of/can name. And it's now in a franchise with billions of dollars.

Jun 30, 2016#24

Hailey Knight

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I don't think it is that they didn't get flak, it's just more light being shown on it these days. Trump is calling a senator "Pocahantas", people are realizing 'holy shit there's a billion dollar pro sport team called the redskins literally', and there's a general rise of awareness.

Also those writers weren't on as high a profile as JK Rowling, aka, the only author that millions of people have ever heard of/can name. And it's now in a franchise with billions of dollars.

There's definitely more awareness nowadays.

I want to throw in Stephen King as an author millions of people have heard of/can name who used Native American elements as integral parts of at least two novels, but neither is in a franchise worth billions of dollars, nor is he writing such things into an upcoming movie highly anticipated by people of all ages around the world.

Jun 30, 2016#25

Charlie Don't Surf

Zero Esc said:
I want to throw in Stephen King as an author millions of people have heard of/can name who used Native American elements as integral parts of at least two novels, but neither is in a franchise worth billions of dollars, nor is he writing such things into an upcoming movie highly anticipated by people of all ages around the world.

also I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Stephen King might have been more thoughtful about it than JK Rowling. I haven't read any of his books though, to be fair. I'm just basing it on his various thoughtful/liberal-leaning editorial things I've read. While Rowling is championing Brexit and posting nonsense like this -

edit - the quoted tweet is about Corbyn, she's shared 30 different articles trashing him in the last week.

Jul 1, 2016#26

Hailey Knight

Charlie Don't Surf said:
also I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Stephen King might have been more thoughtful about it than JK Rowling. I haven't read any of his books though, to be fair. I'm just basing it on his various thoughtful/liberal-leaning editorial things I've read.

You are correct and I almost mentioned this but then didn't feel it was relevant. His instances were more respectful.

While Rowling is championing Brexit

And using Harry Potter references, because yay.

I should probably get out of this thread.

Jul 1, 2016#27

AshburnerX

Wait, what? I thought Rowling wanted to STAY in the EU? She's been championing Scottish Independence since the Brexit vote... which might SEEM weird,since she was anti-Scottish Independence in 2014 during the first vote but she's for it now because she believes Scotland should stay with the EU, even if England doesn't.

Jul 1, 2016#28

Charlie Don't Surf

AshburnerX said:
Wait, what? I thought Rowling wanted to STAY in the EU? She's been championing Scottish Independence since the Brexit vote... which might SEEM weird,since she was anti-Scottish Independence in 2014 during the first vote but she's for it now because she believes Scotland should stay with the EU, even if England doesn't.

my bad, I misinterpreted this tweet -

Jul 1, 2016#29

AshburnerX

Charlie Don't Surf said:
my bad, I misinterpreted this tweet -

She's pro-democracy, not pro-Leave. England made it's vote... but Scotland voted entirely to stay. So she's supporting the Scottish Independence movement.

Jul 1, 2016#30

Bubble181

I still say it's silly that it's ok to "change" lore surrounding witches, wizards, unicorns, giants, trolls, and what-have-you to build a fictitious world, but if you use creatures from other folklore than "Western European" (she mixes liberally from German, Saxon, French, Latin, Greek, Christian,...mythology, after all), it's suddenly horrible recuperation. I promise I won't complain about a Native American writer using "trolls" in a slightly different way than originally envisioned or as they're traditionally interpreted.

I mean, you can, of course, use them as clearly insulting - Djinns were often used as demon/devil stand-ins in Western fiction based in or around middle-eastern stories for example - but as far as I know none of what JKR wrote so far's been casting Native American beliefs in a negative light. Of course, she did shy away from calling Jesus pretty much just a strong wizard from before they went into hiding, while she does happily repurpose other religions' beliefs or myths as stories about magic....Eh.

Jul 3, 2016#31

Charlie Don't Surf

Bubble181 said:
Of course, she did shy away from calling Jesus pretty much just a strong wizard from before they went into hiding, while she does happily repurpose other religions' beliefs or myths as stories about magic....Eh.

this letter by a young Native American http://nativesinamerica.com/2016/07/dear-jk-rowling-were-still-here/ goes a long way imo of showing why it's a big deal to those folks.

Jul 3, 2016#32

AshburnerX

It's times like this that I kind of wish that Rowling would open up the Wizarding World to other writers, as she clearly has no great interest in filling out the expanded world in the way her fans and other writers are. She could really do it in the vein of the EU of Star Wars: acting as custodian to the playground of her works and moderating what is and isn't acceptable in her world, while allowing other writers to cover other aspects of it while forging their own stories. Not only would she make a FORTUNE doing this (and thus help her continue to fund her numerous charitable works), we could avoid shit like this.

Why aren't Native American writers helping her write this shit right now? Why hasn't Warner Brothers sat her down and went "You're embarrassing the fuck out of us, so we'd love to hire a team of Native American history and folklore specialists to talk with you about the various aspects of the story before it goes up?" Are they worried about losing out to another company for future books? And I know it's fucking disrespectful to the writer to make them jump through hops like this, but her works are greater than her at this point.

Jul 3, 2016#33

Charlie Don't Surf

AshburnerX said:
Not only would she make a FORTUNE doing this .

i highly doubt this

Jul 3, 2016#34

Hailey Knight

AshburnerX said:
Why hasn't Warner Brothers sat her down and went "You're embarrassing the fuck out of us

Is it? I don't see this being widely reported; just us internet people noticing it, discussing it.

Jul 3, 2016#35

AshburnerX

Zero Esc said:
Is it? I don't see this being widely reported; just us internet people noticing it, discussing it.

And if Warner Brothers wasn't aware of this, I would be surprised. It's their job to be aware and they are a VAST company. But then again, them not being proper custodians of their works is part of why the aforementioned DC stuff has become a dumpster fire instead of a true competitor to the Marvel films. They could simply not know or just not care, content to let Rowling take the heat.

Jul 3, 2016#36

Charlie Don't Surf

No one gives a fuck about offending Native Americans. Period. They are 100% safe to never acknowledge this and still make billions. We have a football team called the Redskins here for chrissakes.

Jul 3, 2016#37

@Li3n

Charlie Don't Surf said:
this letter by a young Native American http://nativesinamerica.com/2016/07/dear-jk-rowling-were-still-here/ goes a long way imo of showing why it's a big deal to those folks.

I'm sorry, but how exactly is a children's book supposed to give a respectful view of genocide?

Jul 3, 2016#38

Hailey Knight

@Li3n said:
I'm sorry, but how exactly is a children's book supposed to give a respectful view of genocide?

No one's asking for that. They're just pointing out that JK Rowling is participating in the same level of erasure as often is done when Native American stuff is added to a fiction.

Which is why I keep saying, I don't see why anyone thought she'd do any differently. She's not an anthropologist, she's not culturally learned or diverse. She's a children's book author. There are people I expect better from--she isn't one of them. I never assumed it was in her capacity to be respectful to Native American beliefs or to understand how complex or diverse they are. For fuck's sake, there is ONE wizarding school for all the provinces of Canada, all the states of the U.S., and every island of the Caribbean. All those places--one school. This is not written by a worldly person.

Jul 3, 2016#39

Bubble181

Zero Esc said:
No one's asking for that. They're just pointing out that JK Rowling is participating in the same level of erasure as often is done when Native American stuff is added to a fiction.

Which is why I keep saying, I don't see why anyone thought she'd do any differently. She's not an anthropologist, she's not culturally learned or diverse. She's a children's book author. There are people I expect better from--she isn't one of them. I never assumed it was in her capacity to be respectful to Native American beliefs or to understand how complex or diverse they are. For fuck's sake, there is ONE wizarding school for all the provinces of Canada, all the states of the U.S., and every island of the Caribbean. All those places--one school. This is not written by a worldly person.

Hold on, I haven't actually read all of the new stuff yet, but are we sure there's only one? Up until GoF, there seemed to be only one school for all of Europe, too. And as far as we know, there are exactly 2 - and one in Russia. Assuming another one in China and possibly one in the Middle East or so, the implication is there are, what, max 10 Wizarding schools in the whole world. I'd've assumed at least two, maybe three, in the Americas, but it's not that much of a stretch. You can't say Canada or the Caribbean are all that densely populated compared to, oh, all of Central Europe, that get none.

Jul 3, 2016#40

AshburnerX

Bubble181 said:
Hold on, I haven't actually read all of the new stuff yet, but are we sure there's only one? Up until GoF, there seemed to be only one school for all of Europe, too. And as far as we know, there are exactly 2 - and one in Russia. Assuming another one in China and possibly one in the Middle East or so, the implication is there are, what, max 10 Wizarding schools in the whole world. I'd've assumed at least two, maybe three, in the Americas, but it's not that much of a stretch. You can't say Canada or the Caribbean are all that densely populated compared to, oh, all of Central Europe, that get none.

Ones that's we know about for sure...
Known wizarding schools

ImageWizarding SchoolLocationRange

Beauxbatons Academy of Magic
Pyrenees, France [9]
France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain [9]

Castelobruxo
Amazon rainforest, Brazil [4]
All over South America [4]

Durmstrang Institute
Scandinavia; northernmost reaches of either Norway
or Sweden [10][11][12]
Willing to accept international students,[8] but presumably mainly northern Europe

Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
Highlands, Scotland [13]
Scotland, England, Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales [5][6]

Ilvermorny School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
Mount Greylock, United States of America [14]
All over North America [14]

Koldovstoretz
Russia
Russia[15]

Mahoutokoro School of Magic
Minami Iwo Jima, Japan [7]
Japan[7]

Uagadou School of Magic
Mountains of the Moon, Uganda [3][2]
All over Africa [3][2]

There may be others, but they have never been revealed. Regardless, this leaves China, Korea, India, and others without local schools.

Jul 3, 2016#41

Hailey Knight

AshburnerX said:
Ones that's we know about for sure...
Known wizarding schools

ImageWizarding SchoolLocationRange

Beauxbatons Academy of Magic
Pyrenees, France [9]
France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain [9]

Castelobruxo
Amazon rainforest, Brazil [4]
All over South America [4]

Durmstrang Institute
Scandinavia; northernmost reaches of either Norway
or Sweden [10][11][12]
Willing to accept international students,[8] but presumably mainly northern Europe

Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
Highlands, Scotland [13]
Scotland, England, Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales [5][6]

Ilvermorny School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
Mount Greylock, United States of America [14]
All over North America [14]

Koldovstoretz
Russia
Russia[15]

Mahoutokoro School of Magic
Minami Iwo Jima, Japan [7]
Japan[7]

Uagadou School of Magic
Mountains of the Moon, Uganda [3][2]
All over Africa [3][2]

There may be others, but they have never been revealed. Regardless, this leaves China, Korea, India, and others without local schools.

I feel like I'm missing something with the above parts ... if I'm reading correctly, one school for all the many nations of Africa, and yet several in a Texas radius for Europe? And then China, a billion people. India, another billion people.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. JK Rowling has little concept of the world at large, or the largeness of the world.

Jul 3, 2016#42

Ravenpoe

Zero Esc said:
I feel like I'm missing something with the above parts ... if I'm reading correctly, one school for all the many nations of Africa, and yet several in a Texas radius for Europe? And then China, a billion people. India, another billion people.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. JK Rowling has little concept of the world at large, or the largeness of the world.

Well, if she wanted to, she could just say the reason for all of that is magic.

Jul 3, 2016#43

Hailey Knight

Ravenpoe said:
Well, if she wanted to, she could just say the reason for all of that is magic.

Jul 3, 2016#44

strawman

From the article Charlie posted, I don't think there is any possible way jkr could have possibly made them happy.

Her works are fantasy. Period. Take some aspect of the world, change one thing, and then see what the world would have been if that one thing were true.
This is the essence of fantasy.

The writer of that article wants instead an historically accurate fiction about their people.

The two can't be done, and furthermore if she had not included them this would also have offended them.

So the only possible solution would be to disallow anyone to write anything about any culture, people, or ethnicity that isn't historically accurate.

Which is, sadly, what a lot of people want.

Jul 3, 2016#45

Sparhawk

stienman said:
Which is, sadly, what a lot of people want.

Really, I'd say it's what a very small, very vocal group of people want. The internet, especially facebook, allows a small loud group of people to get their specific message out, and others to jump on the bandwagon to up the noise to substance ratio. Lots of people join the crowd calling for something when they haven't really thought about any of it at all. Sometimes it can be a good thing, much of the time it's just a distraction from things that could really make differences.

Jul 3, 2016#46

Tress

Let's remember that most of these people are just idiots with a megaphone, and go back to ignoring this so-called "controversy."

Jul 3, 2016#47

Charlie Don't Surf

Tress said:
Let's remember that most of these people are just idiots with a megaphone, and go back to ignoring this so-called "controversy."

you think the girl that wrote what i posted is an 'idiot with a megaphone' ?

Jul 3, 2016#48

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
From the article Charlie posted, I don't think there is any possible way jkr could have possibly made them happy.

Her works are fantasy. Period. Take some aspect of the world, change one thing, and then see what the world would have been if that one thing were true.
This is the essence of fantasy.

The writer of that article wants instead an historically accurate fiction about their people.

The two can't be done, and furthermore if she had not included them this would also have offended them.

So the only possible solution would be to disallow anyone to write anything about any culture, people, or ethnicity that isn't historically accurate.

Which is, sadly, what a lot of people want.

The problem is taking their beliefs and saying "it's wizards."

As Bubble suggested, they would've have a leg to stand on if for instance JK Rowling wrote in Jesus as a wizard who defied the law and showed magic to muggles, but I'm guessing that would get reported in the news and there'd be a sizable backlash, especially from parents who already think Harry Potter is the devil. A Wrinkle in Time did something similar and I think that's banned from some schools.

Jul 3, 2016#49

strawman

You are repeating points that have already been made. I understand why the author of the article is upset, and I hope she finds another author who can be what JKR used to be for her, since that appears to be very important to her. It's hard when you base so much of your happiness and joy on one person, and then they do something which you find very difficult to bear. It is sad she has to go through this process.

I can't help her. JKR can't help her. She's going to have to either set aside those works of art that she can't handle, or she's going to have to resolve the dissonance that she feels if she wants to enjoy these works of fiction.

I don't understand why we are so focused on people who have difficulty with these works. We will always be able to find offense and opposition for anything and everything if we look hard enough, and moral absolutism - the idea that if one thing is wrong we should throw everything related out - isn't the way to appreciate art. We will always be able to find an issue with a piece of art, it's artist, curator, or museum, and of we decide to throw something away then we lose the opportunity to experience the good things about it.

So she hates it. That's too bad. I'm hopeful that it will be enjoyable for me.

Jul 4, 2016#50

Tress

Charlie Don't Surf said:
you think the girl that wrote what i posted is an 'idiot with a megaphone' ?

Yes.

Jul 4, 2016#51

Charlie Don't Surf

alright then

Jul 4, 2016#52

@Li3n

Charlie Don't Surf said:
alright then

She does seem to have the impression that JK made up creatures for HP instead of just adapting existing ones from english (and other european) folklore.

Zero Esc said:
No one's asking for that.

But that's the thing, that letter charlie posted doesn't leave much room for JK to be able to include native americans and skirt the issue.

Zero Esc said:
They're just pointing out that JK Rowling is participating in the same level of erasure as often is done when Native American stuff is added to a fiction.

And, as a chidren's book, it's pretty much impossible for her not to.

Now maybe she could add some small references of the native wizards wanting to help their brethren against the colonists (could even tie it in with the Ghost Dance movement), and that being at odds with the wizarding worlds secrecy thing... but you know that wouldn't be enough.

stienman said:
So she hates it. That's too bad. I'm hopeful that it will be enjoyable for me.

Well she hates the timeline posted on the site. Maybe the book will be better with it's native characters... JK was always better at that part. \

Bubble181 said:
Hold on, I haven't actually read all of the new stuff yet, but are we sure there's only one? Up until GoF, there seemed to be only one school for all of Europe, too. And as far as we know, there are exactly 2 - and one in Russia. Assuming another one in China and possibly one in the Middle East or so, the implication is there are, what, max 10 Wizarding schools in the whole world. I'd've assumed at least two, maybe three, in the Americas, but it's not that much of a stretch. You can't say Canada or the Caribbean are all that densely populated compared to, oh, all of Central Europe, that get none.

Well she could always fix that by saying those schools are all based on the european model of witchcraft and wizardy (exported because colonialism, after all, it's not like the magical bureaucracy wasn't presented as bigoted), and all those regions have their own wand-less traditions, that get taught in different ways. Hell, she could even make a point that the NA school tried to integrate but sucked at it, and that's why it has those native elements while not being very accurate etc.

Jul 4, 2016#53

Frank

Tress said:
Yes.

Why?

Jul 4, 2016#54

Hailey Knight

@Li3n said:
But that's the thing, that letter charlie posted doesn't leave much room for JK to be able to include native americans and skirt the issue.

Really the key would be not homogenizing the different cultures and such. But like I've said, I don't think JK Rowling is even aware that these were different nations, different cultures, different languages. It's not something in her knowledge, so how would she even include it? It's beyond her.

And, as a chidren's book, it's pretty much impossible for her not to.

I'd also argue that considering the content of the later Harry Potter books, the target audience gets a little skewed.

Well she could always fix that by saying those schools are all based on the european model of witchcraft and wizardy (exported because colonialism, after all, it's not like the magical bureaucracy wasn't presented as bigoted), and all those regions have their own wand-less traditions, that get taught in different ways. Hell, she could even make a point that the NA school tried to integrate but sucked at it, and that's why it has those native elements while not being very accurate etc.

That's actually a good way to make it work, explaining outside-fiction failings using the fiction itself. I feel like Rowling has tweeted explanations like that regarding the Hogwarts faculty and the Ministry of Magic before.

stienman said:
You are repeating points that have already been made. I understand why the author of the article is upset, and I hope she finds another author who can be what JKR used to be for her, since that appears to be very important to her. It's hard when you base so much of your happiness and joy on one person, and then they do something which you find very difficult to bear. It is sad she has to go through this process.

I can't help her. JKR can't help her. She's going to have to either set aside those works of art that she can't handle, or she's going to have to resolve the dissonance that she feels if she wants to enjoy these works of fiction.

I don't understand why we are so focused on people who have difficulty with these works. We will always be able to find offense and opposition for anything and everything if we look hard enough, and moral absolutism - the idea that if one thing is wrong we should throw everything related out - isn't the way to appreciate art. We will always be able to find an issue with a piece of art, it's artist, curator, or museum, and of we decide to throw something away then we lose the opportunity to experience the good things about it.

So she hates it. That's too bad. I'm hopeful that it will be enjoyable for me.

My takeaway from your post is that because it affects her, but doesn't affect us, it isn't worth discussing? Because no one's here against their will.

Except me. This is my gift. My curse.

Jul 4, 2016#55

AshburnerX

Zero Esc said:
The problem is taking their beliefs and saying "it's wizards."

As Bubble suggested, they would've have a leg to stand on if for instance JK Rowling wrote in Jesus as a wizard who defied the law and showed magic to muggles, but I'm guessing that would get reported in the news and there'd be a sizable backlash, especially from parents who already think Harry Potter is the devil. A Wrinkle in Time did something similar and I think that's banned from some schools.

Many Waters (part of the series) is essentially about the days leading up to the Great Flood, features both normal and fallen angels, and is (while a fine book) INCREDIBLY fucked up for a kid's book. Like, it wants to be 5th-6th grade book but content makes it feel more like something you'd never touch to high school sometimes.

Jul 4, 2016#56

strawman

Zero Esc said:
My takeaway from your post is that because it affects her, but doesn't affect us, it isn't worth discussing?

It isn't being discussed. It's the same few points being made over and over again, like a bludgeon. Re-read the entire thread. It is no longer about the work, and it's not being discussed by people who want to talk about the work. It's now about the people who are offended by the work.

I know there are members on this board that are very excited about it, but they dare not go into threads like this because of these hateful side "discussions". I wish we could have two threads, but the reality is that the discussion about the hate would die off by itself - it only survives because people who want to enjoy the work feel like they have to defend it in a thread where they want to discuss their enjoyment of it.

So I'll leave you all to your intellectual masturbation, and perhaps I'll look elsewhere to share my enjoyment of it.

Have fun going around in circles.

Jul 4, 2016#57

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
It isn't being discussed. It's the same few points being made over and over again, like a bludgeon. Re-read the entire thread. It is no longer about the work, and it's not being discussed by people who want to talk about the work. It's now about the people who are offended by the work.

I know there are members on this board that are very excited about it, but they dare not go into threads like this because of these hateful side "discussions". I wish we could have two threads, but the reality is that the discussion about the hate would die off by itself - it only survives because people who want to enjoy the work feel like they have to defend it in a thread where they want to discuss their enjoyment of it.

So I'll leave you all to your intellectual masturbation, and perhaps I'll look elsewhere to share my enjoyment of it.

Have fun going around in circles.

I'll make my own Harry Potter thread. With blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget Harry Potter!

There's a discussion being had, but it's not discussing what you want to discuss. A situation was brought up that relates to the work, and that is what's being discussed. No, not the work itself, but it relates to it.

You're not discussing your enjoyment of it here either. You know what's more productive than telling people to stop doing something? Redirecting the activity. You could post about the work itself. It's not like I've never been there. Remember a bunch of you guys assing it up in the Captain America: Civil War thread? I was all over the work itself, but that didn't stop thread derailment. You could just as easily post stuff about the movie or the new books or even Harry Potter in general since it's become the catch-all thread for this stuff--which is why this discussion is here instead of its own thread, it's a megathread--but instead you got into this with the rest of us.

Jul 4, 2016#58

Charlie Don't Surf

jesus steinman you need a safe space? are we triggering you with conversations not centered on white christianity?

Jul 4, 2016#59

Hailey Knight

Jul 5, 2016#60

PatrThom

Charlie Don't Surf said:
jesus steinman you need a safe space?

No, just tolerance. And understanding.

--Patrick

Jul 7, 2016#61

HCGLNS

I am excited about the new book being released in a few weeks!

Jul 7, 2016#62

@Li3n

Zero Esc said:
I'd also argue that considering the content of the later Harry Potter books, the target audience gets a little skewed.

And i'd argue that y'all needs to stop thinking any sort of darkness in a story = not a children's book. I mean the 1st one had an evil face on the back of someone head.

Jul 7, 2016#63

Hailey Knight

@Li3n said:
And i'd argue that y'all needs to stop thinking any sort of darkness in a story = not a children's book. I mean the 1st one had an evil face on the back of someone head.

And the sixth had a guy chew off another guy's face.

Jul 7, 2016#64

HCGLNS

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child!

Squeeeee!

Jul 7, 2016#65

Ravenpoe

@Li3n said:
And i'd argue that y'all needs to stop thinking any sort of darkness in a story = not a children's book. I mean the 1st one had an evil face on the back of someone head.

Harry Potter contains a lot of heavy stuff. Murder, dismemberment, disfigurement, torture, racism, genocide. It includes things typically considered not kid friendly, such as alcohol and tobacco use, as well as depicting adults as flawed human beings. I think the reason it succeeds so well as a children's book (and why adults as well enjoy it) is because it doesn't treat kids as people that are stupid and need to be shielded.

Jul 7, 2016#66

Hailey Knight

Ravenpoe said:
Harry Potter contains a lot of heavy stuff. Murder, dismemberment, disfigurement, torture, racism, genocide. It includes things typically considered not kid friendly, such as alcohol and tobacco use, as well as depicting adults as flawed human beings. I think the reason it succeeds so well as a children's book (and why adults as well enjoy it) is because it doesn't treat kids as people that are stupid and need to be shielded.

Emphasis mine.

So if the series already addresses genocide, why is it now

@Li3n said:
I'm sorry, but how exactly is a children's book supposed to give a respectful view of genocide?

Jul 8, 2016#67

@Li3n

Zero Esc said:
Emphasis mine.

So if the series already addresses genocide, why is it now

??

Because it doesn't actually do those things. Sure, it hints at them, but it's not a very in depth look at the issues.

I mean Grindelwald was behind Hitler according to the books timeline, right. Do you think it contained a respectful view of the suffering of the jews, gays, gypsies, slavs etc? Of course not, she just glossed over them.

And that sort of glossing over is what that blog Charlie posted was complaining about.

Ravenpoe said:
Harry Potter contains a lot of heavy stuff. Murder, dismemberment, disfigurement, torture, racism, genocide. It includes things typically considered not kid friendly, such as alcohol and tobacco use, as well as depicting adults as flawed human beings. I think the reason it succeeds so well as a children's book (and why adults as well enjoy it) is because it doesn't treat kids as people that are stupid and need to be shielded.

Exactly, a children's book doesn't need to completely eliminate those things. But it also doesnt deal with them the same way an adult work should.

Jul 10, 2016#68

Bubble181

There's a difference between talking about a - fictional - genocide on a fictional race or fictional races being mistreated (giants are pretty much heading for extinction, centaurs have been relegated to small enclaves/reserves, house elves are an enslaved species, other species are clearly named "lesser" species, not to mention the obvious and easy race issue approach to Muggles/Wizards), and talking about the real issues real people went through. One can be a stand-in for the other, an analogue - most aren't exactly hard to draw - and people will protest a bit that some things are glossed over, simplified, etc, and the response can be "yes, but this is about Muggles, and it tries to paint a picture of good vs evil, it's not a social commentary or a cultural critique". Once you talk about the actual people/cultures/whatever, it's a much easier and bigger target, and some people can't quite handle too many simplifications, commentary or critique. I've heard and seen people say that HP's portrayal of WWII - the first coming of Voldemort and its ramifications for Muggles - lessens and makes less meaningful the sacrifices made by our - Muggle - war veterans. It hasn't reached the same level, though.

Aug 3, 2016#69

HCGLNS

Have you got your new book? I've got my new book! I've always enjoyed this format.

Aug 3, 2016#70

@Li3n

Bubble181 said:
I've heard and seen people say that HP's portrayal of WWII - the first coming of Voldemort and its ramifications for Muggles - lessens and makes less meaningful the sacrifices made by our - Muggle - war veterans.

TIL, Harry Potter was over 40 when he found out about Hogwarts.

Voldy's 1st coming was the Thatcher Years, not WW2 (that was Dumbledore's "happy friend").

Aug 3, 2016#71

strawman

HCGLNS said:
Have you got your new book? I've got my new book! I've always enjoyed this format.

I do, but I haven't been able to read it yet!

My wife has finished it, and usually we'd be discussing it, but man am I busy these days...

Aug 3, 2016#72

AshburnerX

I'm waiting to hear reviews.

Aug 3, 2016#73

HCGLNS

I love the characters and setting but I dislike the plot device.

But that is a me thing and not at all limited to the Harry Potter universe.

Aug 3, 2016#74

Sparhawk

@Li3n said:
TIL, Harry Potter was over 40 when he found out about Hogwarts.

Voldy's 1st coming was the Thatcher Years, not WW2 (that was Dumbledore's "happy friend").

I don't follow your first statement, "Harry" won't turn 40 until 2020, his birth was in 1980.

Aug 3, 2016#75

Bubble181

Sparhawk said:
I don't follow your first statement, "Harry" won't turn 40 until 2020, his birth was in 1980.

He replied to me, misstating Voldey's first appearance as being WWII. Since Voldey's first appearance stopped when Harry was born, that'd mean Harry was born in 1945. Which isn't right. WWII is, indeed, Grindelwald vs Dumbledore. Doesn't matter much for the rest of my point, but he was right.

Aug 4, 2016#76

@Li3n

Bubble181 said:
Doesn't matter much for the rest of my point, but he was right.

It does matter in that Voldy is a way bigger part of the books then Grindy, so, if it had been him, it would have been a bigger deal by default.

But, yeah, your point stands (and i actually made it myself a while back too).

Aug 4, 2016#77

AshburnerX

Fantastic Beasts sequel announced... before the movie has been released?

I know Warner Brothers is hard up for a hit, but really? ... whatever, I guess. As long as we get more US based Wizarding World, I'm for it.

Aug 4, 2016#78

Sparhawk

AshburnerX said:
Fantastic Beasts sequel announced... before the movie has been released?

I know Warner Brothers is hard up for a hit, but really? ... whatever, I guess. As long as we get more US based Wizarding World, I'm for it.

A date was given, but it's been announced as a trilogy since the first press releases. So, no surprise?

Aug 4, 2016#79

AshburnerX

Sparhawk said:
A date was given, but it's been announced as a trilogy since the first press releases. So, no surprise?

Really? I never noticed. I was hoping we'd get a Quidditch movie next.

Aug 4, 2016#80

Sparhawk

AshburnerX said:
Really? I never noticed. I was hoping we'd get a Quidditch movie next.

Yeah, wife and I were questioning going for a trilogy without announcing much else and based on a rather small book. But, they did get JK to write for it (and at least the next one too) and what I've seen I've been impressed.

Aug 4, 2016#81

Hailey Knight

Sparhawk said:
A date was given, but it's been announced as a trilogy since the first press releases. So, no surprise?

I don't see why they wouldn't announce more. It's going to be a hit; I wouldn't bet against that.

Aug 4, 2016#82

Sparhawk

Zero Esc said:
I don't see why they wouldn't announce more. It's going to be a hit; I wouldn't bet against that.

I can understand not announcing more, not spoiling the first movie, guessing that only a basic outline is currently written for parts 2 and 3. I'm looking forward to the movies.

On a side note, just got to the middle of Cursed Child, interesting read.

Sep 23, 2016#83

strawman

Pottermore just released a patronus quiz. It's very well done visually, using simple but effective 3D, and it looks like it's browser 3D, not pre-rendered.

Either way, apparently my patronus is a weasel.

@Emrys might be amused.

Sep 23, 2016#84

Dave

I got a fox. I'm not disappointed.

Sep 23, 2016#85

Bubble181

Dave said:
I got a fox. I'm not disappointed.

Well, that's @LittleKagsin covered.

Now who'll get an Ewok to make @GasBandit happy?

Sep 23, 2016#86

AshburnerX

I have a "West Highland Terrier" which is VERY specific and makes me think Rowling is a fan of the breed. I'm not amused; my aunt used to have a pair of them that would terrorize me as a kid (and bit me several times), so it makes NO sense that I'd have them as a patronus.

Sep 23, 2016#87

Dave

Scott Kurtz got a basset hound.

Sep 23, 2016#88

Tinwhistler

White swan..

Sep 23, 2016#89

MindDetective

Eh...I don't care enough to register for the site. I'm gonna assume mine is a human.

Sep 23, 2016#90

Bubble181

I was kinda hoping for an owl, but I guess my patronus is fitting, if somewhat unoriginal-sounding... a Robin.

Sep 23, 2016#91

Ravenpoe

MindDetective said:
Eh...I don't care enough to register for the site. I'm gonna assume mine is a human.

Ditto. Though, I'm going to assume my patronus is either a raven, or a zelda-style poe ghost

Sep 23, 2016#92

klew

Granian Winged Horse (I have no idea)

Sep 24, 2016#93

Sparhawk

... a trout.

Sep 24, 2016#94

@Li3n

AshburnerX said:
I have a "West Highland Terrier" which is VERY specific and makes me think Rowling is a fan of the breed. I'm not amused; my aunt used to have a pair of them that would terrorize me as a kid (and bit me several times), so it makes NO sense that I'd have them as a patronus.

Well since Patroni(?) are basically magic security blankets, maybe it's just that the presence of the little monster just makes everything else seem harmless to you.

Sep 24, 2016#95

Ravenpoe

@Li3n said:
Well since Patroni(?) are basically magic security blankets, maybe it's just that the presence of the little monster just makes everything else seem harmless to you.

They're also magic messenger services.

Sep 30, 2016#96

strawman

Oct 1, 2016#97

PatrThom

That looks more Doctor Who than Harry Potter, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

--Patrick

Nov 19, 2016#98

strawman

Just watched the movie. I really enjoyed it as an action movie, and the characters were great. I have to admit on further consideration, though, that the movie isn't all that memorable. I think it wasn't written very well.

There were three primary concerns for the characters early on, but the concerns just weren't clicking, it wasn't like it really mattered, and when the people trying to resolve concern 1 crossed paths with the people resolving concerns 2 and 3 it was just coincidence, in a way.

So there just wasn't much emotional buy-in for this movie. Perhaps there are too many concerns to address in the time allotted, and it might have been better if they dropped something.

There is a scene which should have and could have been much more emotionally wrenching, but wasn't. The big bad guy just isn't very menacing. Lots of minor issues.

Then you get to the fact that we're exploring the wizarding world in a new continent and it's lackluster. It's not so much that there's very little information about this wizarding world, it's that the movie doesn't make you want to know anything about it. There's nothing in the movie that makes me want to see the next one - and while blatant "Watch for the sequel!" endings can be annoying, I'd have appreciated it if a few questions were raised that I wanted to learn more about.

There was only one plot hole that was pretty blatant, and it wouldn't have mattered except it formed the foundation for the second concern. However, this foundation also provides a convincing foundation for why Dumbledore's sister had a problem, and we could be leading into a storyline involving the big bad person and dumbledore.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, and visually it's spectacular. I'll probably watch it again, and perhaps we'll add it to our HP collection, but I won't be sad if we decide not to.

Looks like it's on schedule to pull 90 million opening weekend, and the critics seem to like it, so I expect it'll do well enough, and the HP franchise will continue on.

Nov 20, 2016#99

@Li3n

Pretty sure Harry was being punished for way too many things to be able to single out magic as the main reason why he was being abused. Not to mention that, as i recall, the moments he did magic where always an escape for him, and he took the punishment better.

Plus, considering muggle-born, it's likely that not knowing about magic means you have no idea there's something to suppress.

Nov 20, 2016#100

AshburnerX

@Li3n said:
Pretty sure Harry was being punished for way too many things to be able to single out magic as the main reason why he was being abused. Not to mention that, as i recall, the moments he did magic where always an escape for him, and he took the punishment better.

Plus, considering muggle-born, it's likely that not knowing about magic means you have no idea there's something to suppress.

I would argue that it's much harder to out and out abuse your children in the way you could even 30 years ago. If Harry showed up to school with a black eye and bruises from getting beat by the Dursleys, someone would do something about it, if only because they were legally required to. Fuck, his squib neighbor would have written to Dumbledore and he'd have made sure SOMETHING was done about it. The Dursleys may have been horrible people, but it's also clear that they didn't actually endanger Harry's life, even if they treated him like a burden.

That wouldn't happen in the 20's.

Nov 20, 2016#101

Dave

I have a few issues with this movie, one of which is a minor nitpick and the other is eye-rollingly cringey.

The switching of the identical suitcases. Jesus christ this stupid cliche is in like 10% of all movies. You see the main guy's suitcase and then when the other guy comes in you go, "Yup. They are going to be switched. Couldn't see THAT twist coming!"
New York City is a big fucking place. Yet everything happens in a small 3 or 4 block radius. The hero just happens to be walking in the same place as the fiery anti-witch ~~WBC~~ ~~cult~~ church thing and with all of those people there he just happens to get singled out. Sometimes when I'm shopping with my wife we can't find each other and that's just in one fucking store! Too many "just roll with it" coincidences.
Is this a movie for kids or is this movie for adults? Because it never really makes up its mind. At one point there's bloody murder happening - and I guess Jon Voight's character just forgets how his son dies? - while on the other you have cutesy little critters like the thieving platypus and the stupid little twig thing that just screams "we put this in here for the kids."
And why do Americans call them No-mag's? For one, that's a stupid fucking name and also they'd have probably still called them muggles as it's where we'd have gotten the name to begin with. Americans have changed slang terms for things, but never the actual names of the things. I know they just wanted to show the differences between ours and Harry Potter's world, but come on.
The big bad guy changing his appearance at the end - he'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids! First, it's very Scooby Doo. Second, really? Does Johnny fucking Depp have to be in everything? I'm so sick of that guy. Third, in the wizarding world, this would be a known tactic. It's something that they'd guard against day and night - like a metal detector in our world. Otherwise, bad guys would be impersonating people all the time. Yet he gets away with it for years. Until the hero - who's seen him maybe a handful of times - figures it out. Come on, man.

Yeah, I liked it well enough, but I thought it could have been much better.

Nov 21, 2016#102

HCGLNS

I enjoyed it. I had iced tea, skittles and popcorn, my daughter had extra butter on her popcorn .

I loved the protagonists and the fantastic beasts.

Stupid macusa laws can't stop true love !

Nov 21, 2016#103

@Li3n

Dave said:
I have a few issues with this movie, one of which is a minor nitpick and the other is eye-rollingly cringey.

The big bad guy changing his appearance at the end - he'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids! First, it's very Scooby Doo. Second, really? Does Johnny fucking Depp have to be in everything? I'm so sick of that guy. Third, in the wizarding world, this would be a known tactic. It's something that they'd guard against day and night - like a metal detector in our world. Otherwise, bad guys would be impersonating people all the time. Yet he gets away with it for years. Until the hero - who's seen him maybe a handful of times - figures it out. Come on, man.

Yeah, I liked it well enough, but I thought it could have been much better.

Concerning your last point... you must have hated the Goblet of Fire then.

And that guy wasn't even one of the most powerful wizards of his time.

Nov 21, 2016#104

Dave

Yeah, that was a major plot hole, considering.

Nov 23, 2016#105

D

Dubyamn

My opinion of the movie was that it almost seemed like two movies haphazardly lashed together. The first movie is about Newt recapturing his beasts and making friends with the nomaj. The other was everything going on with Colin Ferrell's character.

Overall I think I would have liked it much more without the B storyline of Colin Ferrell's character dicking around with a prophecy that we never get to see really play out.

Nov 28, 2016#106

BananaHands

Dubyamn said:
My opinion of the movie was that it almost seemed like two movies haphazardly lashed together. The first movie is about Newt recapturing his beasts and making friends with the nomaj. The other was everything going on with Colin Ferrell's character.

Overall I think I would have liked it much more without the B storyline of Colin Ferrell's character dicking around with a prophecy that we never get to see really play out.

Same. I felt like I watched a movie based on a book I never read.

Platypus thing made the entire movie worth it, followed closely by the no-mag.[DOUBLEPOST=1480395805,1480395686][/DOUBLEPOST]

Dave said:
I have a few issues with this movie, one of which is a minor nitpick and the other is eye-rollingly cringey.

The switching of the identical suitcases. Jesus christ this stupid cliche is in like 10% of all movies. You see the main guy's suitcase and then when the other guy comes in you go, "Yup. They are going to be switched. Couldn't see THAT twist coming!"

New York City is a big fucking place. Yet everything happens in a small 3 or 4 block radius. The hero just happens to be walking in the same place as the fiery anti-witch ~~WBC~~ ~~cult~~ church thing and with all of those people there he just happens to get singled out. Sometimes when I'm shopping with my wife we can't find each other and that's just in one fucking store! Too many "just roll with it" coincidences.

Is this a movie for kids or is this movie for adults? Because it never really makes up its mind. At one point there's bloody murder happening - and I guess Jon Voight's character just forgets how his son dies? - while on the other you have cutesy little critters like the thieving platypus and the stupid little twig thing that just screams "we put this in here for the kids."

And why do Americans call them No-mag's? For one, that's a stupid fucking name and also they'd have probably still called them muggles as it's where we'd have gotten the name to begin with. Americans have changed slang terms for things, but never the actual names of the things. I know they just wanted to show the differences between ours and Harry Potter's world, but come on.

The big bad guy changing his appearance at the end - he'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids! First, it's very Scooby Doo. Second, really? Does Johnny fucking Depp have to be in everything? I'm so sick of that guy. Third, in the wizarding world, this would be a known tactic. It's something that they'd guard against day and night - like a metal detector in our world. Otherwise, bad guys would be impersonating people all the time. Yet he gets away with it for years. Until the hero - who's seen him maybe a handful of times - figures it out. Come on, man.

Yeah, I liked it well enough, but I thought it could have been much better.

I agree with 2 and 5 very deeply but COME ON THE PLATYPUS AND TWIG THINGS WERE GREAT.

Nov 29, 2016#107

drawn_inward

Dave said:
I have a few issues with this movie, one of which is a minor nitpick and the other is eye-rollingly cringey.

The switching of the identical suitcases. Jesus christ this stupid cliche is in like 10% of all movies. You see the main guy's suitcase and then when the other guy comes in you go, "Yup. They are going to be switched. Couldn't see THAT twist coming!"

New York City is a big fucking place. Yet everything happens in a small 3 or 4 block radius. The hero just happens to be walking in the same place as the fiery anti-witch ~~WBC~~ ~~cult~~ church thing and with all of those people there he just happens to get singled out. Sometimes when I'm shopping with my wife we can't find each other and that's just in one fucking store! Too many "just roll with it" coincidences.

Is this a movie for kids or is this movie for adults? Because it never really makes up its mind. At one point there's bloody murder happening - and I guess Jon Voight's character just forgets how his son dies? - while on the other you have cutesy little critters like the thieving platypus and the stupid little twig thing that just screams "we put this in here for the kids."

And why do Americans call them No-mag's? For one, that's a stupid fucking name and also they'd have probably still called them muggles as it's where we'd have gotten the name to begin with. Americans have changed slang terms for things, but never the actual names of the things. I know they just wanted to show the differences between ours and Harry Potter's world, but come on.

The big bad guy changing his appearance at the end - he'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids! First, it's very Scooby Doo. Second, really? Does Johnny fucking Depp have to be in everything? I'm so sick of that guy. Third, in the wizarding world, this would be a known tactic. It's something that they'd guard against day and night - like a metal detector in our world. Otherwise, bad guys would be impersonating people all the time. Yet he gets away with it for years. Until the hero - who's seen him maybe a handful of times - figures it out. Come on, man.

Yeah, I liked it well enough, but I thought it could have been much better.

I'd say you hit every problem that I had with the movie. I wish I would have seen Hacksaw Ridge instead. It was our second outing to the movies in 2016 and it was wasted on a silly movie.

Apr 12, 2017#108

Bubble181

Jude Law has been cast as "young Dumbledore". I can see that choice. More fitting than Depp as Grindelwald, certainly.

Apr 12, 2017#109

AshburnerX

Bubble181 said:
Jude Law has been cast as "young Dumbledore". I can see that choice. More fitting than Depp as Grindelwald, certainly.

Ehh... we know basically nothing about Grindelwald as character except what few things were mentioned on Pottermore and his 5 seconds in the last book. The only reason Johnny Depp is getting the hate for this role is that he's EVERYWHERE and sor tof being cast against type.

Apr 12, 2017#110

ThatNickGuy

AshburnerX said:
The only reason Johnny Depp is getting the hate

To say nothing of being raked over the coals by everyone for being a wife abuser.

Apr 12, 2017#111

AshburnerX

ThatNickGuy said:
To say nothing of being raked over the coals by everyone for being a wife abuser.

Thats true. Completely forgot about it.

Forums