Chamber of Secrets would have been 100x better if Russell Crowe played Lockhart

Chamber of Secrets would have been 100x better if Russell Crowe played Lockhart

no

Lockhart > Lupin > Quirrell > Fake Moody

Snape > All

I cannot figure out what this is in terms of. How interesting a character is?

It's a defence against the dark arts teacher ranking

Why would you want Crowd to play a phony?

Yeah, but by what measure? It obviously isn't in how well they teach or skill.

FOITIN ROUND DA WORL'

on the contrary, it's exactly based on skill and teaching ability

I always thought Hugh Grant would have made a better choice.

lol

Anyway, here's an attempt at a real ranking:

Lupin = Fake Moody > Quirrell > Lockhart

Didn't place Snape because I can't remember what he was like as the DaDa teacher

Wow. That would work.

he taught harry how to read minds

his hair is familiar

Why was Dumbledore so fucking useless at his teaching appointments?

Nothing could make this piece of shit better since it's part of one 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.

That wasn't when he was the teacher tho, that was just a one on one thing.

Nothing could make this piece of shit better since it's part of one 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 adapting the Gilderoy Lockheart books; 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-Lockheart 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.

When you should be reading Gilderoy Lockheart's collection instead.

>triggered

stay in your dr who quarantine tumblr. FB doesn't mean you can post with the rest of the board