Why the fuck didn't they have his silver hand strangle him to death like in the book...

Why the fuck didn't they have his silver hand strangle him to death like in the book? Why even give him the hand in the first place if they weren't going to do the payoff?

Welcome to Yates' Potter movies where nothing makes sense

>why did they turned wizard battles into clouds of smoke bouncing off each other
>why did they make dumbledore's duel with voldemort so boring
>why did dumbledore say "well done slytherin" twice

There are so many questions mon ami.

What happened in the movie?

Fucking nothing.

Dobby hits him with some generic spell, Wormtail does a comical "Oh!" and slumps to the ground, he's never seen on screen again

He started jerking it. Pretty good twist.

I never got this. did he actually die?

manchildren got upset

No

it was pretty graphic and they didnt want to scar eof kids. there were lots of fucked up parts of the book
>hargid being carried off by a sea of spiders
>fred dying in an explosion with a smile on his dead face
>the little twat from the 2nd movie that liked to photograph things dies in the last battle

>why did they make dumbledore's duel with voldemort so boring

and I was looking forward to that duel so much, fuck

>tfw Dumbledore in the movie didn't bring the fountain statues to life
>nor did Fawkes appear and take a killing curse for Dumbledore

Sometimes you'll find that a film adaptation takes liberties with certain situations when compared to the novels they're based on, especially when the novels comprise one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. 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.

Why did they turn Dumbledore into a senile panicky fuck when they changed actors?

Because in their minds(directors with more merit than you) saw that it fit best.

How do you know the director has more merit than him? Maybe you are speaking with Steven Spielberg

It is an abrupt change. He goes from a laid back chill old man to a coked up kook.

Idk if this is pasta but I kekd

...

couldn't believe this shit when I saw it in theaters

I haven't even bothered to watch the last couple of movies

Because just look at his post, its very clear he isn't someone like that. Anyways Harris was decrepit. He was barely even mobile at that point and wheezed out every line. One of Dumbledore's most prominent qualities was that he was spry for his age, full of life.

The gif you tumblr teens use to back up Harris is pointless. Are you really going to be pedantic enough to look up specific moments in the book and compare them to the movies? Spoiler alert, they're going to be different. Constantly. A single instance does not a stupid point prove.

And even if we're going off the books, Dumbledore grows seemingly bipolar as time goes on. He's conflicted, contradictory, and full of ulterior motives. And batshit insane? He's called almost exactly that very often by other characters.

Anybody who honestly thinks Harris was a superior Dumbledore either didn't read the books or just didn't get them. Which is hard to do.

Nobody will read that.

Also, nice blog post or whatever you kids say these days

The last four were all better than The Goblet of Fire.

Are those meant to be paragraphs?
What an ugly layout.

based
>When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.
absolutely based

Dumbledore was gay man Rowling even said it.

Yeah, it lasted like three fucking minutes in the movie when it should have been something with much more meat to it. Hated how they rushed that battle, cause it was a significant moment.

That always annoyed me, they did this shit with Gandalf too.

Now that the beginning sentence is edited to have context with the thread this copypasta is actuallly pretty funny
You're still a loser though

...

Same goes for you
It's just a book series and movie franchise
So what, maybe it is dull, who fucking cares, if you're such patrician maybe you should be reading more books instead of spamming copypastas 24/7

I always liked how this copy-pasta is designed to trigger people across the board.
Good books rated lowly, mediocre books rated highly and a few put in their true places to throw people off, and that's just the image.

...

Because the actor never read the books

Dumbledore in the movies was bipolar, for sure.
But Dumbledore in the books is most definitely
not bipolar. He isn't really that big of a character
in most of the books, just this old cooky
headmaster that seems to understand things
better than normie wizards. Then in book 6 he
kind of goes off the wagon when he pulls Harry
along for that "quest" where he basically kills
himself. Pretty smart wizard.

He was dying anyways. Destroying the ring did that black shit to his hand and it was going to kill him. He sacrificed himself to get the locket (which turned out to be a fake) and to ensure Voldemort's trust in Snape.

>Those rebuttals
Fucking kekt hard
Never change Sup Forums

It's just a bad angle to steer the plot for his character though. He is suppose to be the greatest wizard of that age and you'd think that would amount to more than being equivalent to three teenager wizards.

How exactly is he equivalent to three teenage wizards? Did you not see the shit he did in that cave when he was at his weakest? Could you imagine how powerful he would have been in his prime?

Fantastic Beasts 2 is gonna be awesome for this very reason. I really hope they get somebody other than Yates though. I think the series has had quite enough input from him.

Wearing the ring to try and use its powers was what cursed him.
What? Was I supposed to be rebutting something?
I didn't even care enough to read it due to the piss-poor presentation.

>Wearing the ring to try and use its powers was what cursed him.
Citation needed. In the movie he very clearly implies that it happened while trying to destroy it. As he says "even more difficult to destroy" he glances at his hand.

Just in the way that they were able to pretty much go unscathed and destroy...I can't even remember how many horcruxes they destroyed (3 maybe), while Dumbledore got his ass kicked by them. I get why Rowling wanted to remove him from the plot for obvious reasons, but she could have at least found a more boss way for him to go, not crying like a bitch and having Harry stuff potion down your throat.

The movie is wrong.
In the books he was overcome with a desire to see his deceased sister again and put on the ring in moment of weakness, cursing him.
Snape later derides him for this.
If you think i'm gonna go to my nieces room and find the book to quote from it, then you're kidding yourself.

Oh. I see. So because the ring tricked him when he was trying to destroy it? You made it sound like he put the ring on out of some lust for power.

Seriously this was one of the best parts of the books.

>when Harry spares his life in the 3rd book
>Lupin tells him that even though Wormtail escapes he now owes a debt to Harry
>7th book
>Wormtail going to strangle Harry to death
>Harry screams that he saved his life
>hand remembers this and turns on its owner killing him

>Non-verbal spells are incredibly difficult and even for extremely accomplished wizards, non-verbal spells are simply not as strong as their verbal versions - pretty much the only wizards capable of completely non-verbal combat are Dumbledore & Voldemort, and to a lesser extent the more combat-hardened members of the Death Eaters and the Order of the Phoenix
>In the movies, fifth-graders block and cast spells non-verbally all the time

>Voldemort being able to fly unaided is a revelation that is considered incredible, since it has never been done before, and Snape being able to do it as well shows that he has Voldemort's complete trust
>In the movies fucking everyone can fly, it's no big deal, why do flying brooms even exist

What? This isn't LOTR.

Hm. Is that how that happened? I always thought Voldemort used his powers to make Wormtail strangle himself because he sensed his hesitation.

You guys are also forgetting that not only was the ring a Horcrux, it had a Deathly Hallow in it. Dumbledore surviving for more than 1 minute is a major feat, let alone nearly a fucking a year.

Snape was the one who helped him survive so long.

Not that guy, but he's right. It wasn't out of a lust for power, it was because he wanted to see his sister again, and (combined with whatever enchantments Voldemort surely put on the ring) that compelled him to try to use it.

Nope, it's definitely the life debt thing, Dumbledore takes note of it when Harry mentions it

Yep, but even getting to Snape alive was quite an accomplishment

Snape was quite possibly the third most powerful wizard alive

why didn't Snape just keep making him immortal potion

King wrote some good stories and a LOT of the movies they've made based off his books/stories are good

Carrie, Shawshank, Green Mile, Dreamcatcher (to a degree...), IT (if you read the book, you probably didn't like it), Misery. The Stand apparently
I too thought King was shit till I actually start to read this stuff

You're both right in a way

>Wormtail starts strangling Harry
>Harry mentions he saved Wormtail's life
>Wormtail stops for a moment, hesitating
>The hand realises that Wormtail is contemplating turning on Voldemort
>The hand kills Wormtail

I'm surprised that the picture slowly has changed since when I first saw it from whenever. new additions, some switches...

Oh well, it has been nine fucking years since I've read that book.

Nic Flamel was the only one who knew how to make that and it was destroyed for good.

Order of the Phoenix is the longest book in the series. They had to cram so much shit in that movie three minutes is probably the best they could give to that action sequence. I'm still wondering why they gave the last book the split movie treatment when all the previous ones were butchered from lack of time

This was my take too. Pretty sure the silver hand from VOLDEMORT didn't say "Hey, let's save Potter instead"

The only "immortal potion" is the Elixir of Life, which can only be created by the Philosopher's Stone, which was destroyed.

Snape uses a combination of potions and spells to contain the curse Dumbledore is suffering from in his hand, but it grows stronger over time and will eventually kill him, most likely in a few more weeks

This is all explained in the books, but the movies cut a LOT of stuff from the books, even the important shit

I'm pretty sure it was hesitation...

>Deathly Hallow
Oh fuck, don't make me remember that shit too. Another example of Rowlings shit writing. Throwing in this convenient plot device that ties these horcruxes to Harry's special blanket, and in the end, is only neccessary because she wrote Dumbledore off. Harry needs the DH's to fight Voldemort and win, and instead of just having Dumbledore there to help out, she replaces him with these quicly made up Dick Hallows.

They should have all gotten extended cuts like LotR. I want a 4 hour cut of the Goblet of Fire with everything from the book.

To keep milking the cow.

Honestly the concept of the 3 items IS stupid.

I did have respect for her in making a fairy tale taht fit the fairy tale formula. She did her research.

I know senpai, I'm a Potter connoisseur, I was only memeing

A shame they butchered the most interesting book which gave a look into this vast wizard world not shown previously. Apparently it's a crappy world.

Friendly reminder that 50 minutes was cut from OoTP and barely ~10 minutes of that ended up on the special features

I had actually read a fan fiction before Deathly Hallows came out and at the time I couldn't even notice it was fan fiction. At least until the part where Harry and Ginny start getting hot and heavy. Made me certain it was fan fiction at that point. But the story was actually decent, better than Rowlings from what I remember.

It was my favorite book. It was the first one I read after seeing the first three movies. I was never more let down by a movie.

Damn all this details I already forgot. I suck at reading a book.

It'd probably help if you read something worth paying attention to.

How many years until HBO picks this up as a series and does it right?

>he said whilst posting on a Vietnamese sewing enthusiast imageboard

see ""When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen""

>Why didn't Harry shag the tits off Cho when he had the chance, she was so into him?

>It's a weebcuck Sup Forumsedditor uses 2012 r/Sup Forums memes episode
haha L

The pasta is stale, but reliable and safe

Not so much a lust for power, but the ring was 1/3 of the deathly hallows. Dumbledore was obsessed with finding them. When he realized the horocrux ring of Voldemorts was the same ring he was looking for, he put it on. He also had the cloak and the wand. Just never had all 3 at the same time.

I will never forgive how the movies did not made any justice to the part where voldermont finds the elder wand.

The book really makes you imagine the whole scene.

I dont' follow. The end of 7th movie is him finding the wand and make a big show of it.

Goblet of Fire was probably the worst adaptation of the bunch, though Half-Blood Prince is close to as bad.

What? HBP was one of the best movies.

>see thumbnail
WTF is this about a silver hand strangling a guy to death? Sounds pretty dumb.
>first reply indicates it's from Harry Potter
Oh.
Harry Potter is so fucking dumb.

I never really understood that. Did the hand kill him for his hesitation alone or because it found out Wormtail was attacking the guy who spared his life?

Obviously because it sensed his lack of loyalty to Voldemort because Voldemort was the one that gave him the hand.

>Goblet of Fire was probably the worst adaptation of the bunch
Pleb. GoF was Wandkino.

No it wasn't. It fucked up the best book in the series.

You're fucking dumb for posting this.

that looks like the most useless messenger owl conceivable

Don't mock the Owlbook Air, it's lighter and easier to carry than the Windowls.

...

Is it commonly accepted on Sup Forums that Harry Potter is better pleb kino than capeshit?
I find these movies quite enjoyable.

It don't give a shit about the book. The acting was hilariously ott and the kinomatographica was top tier. Stay pleb.

I've read through the HP series several times and I'm pretty sure that the phrase "stretched his legs" is never used, lel.

harry potter is comfy and kino.