Are they good actors?

Are they good actors?

DULLEST

>Daniel Raddclife is probably standing on a stool in this pic.

Lol what a manlet

The best, Jerry. THE BEST!

Are you a good mobile poster?

the answer is no btw

The ones of the left and right are yes. Ron and Hermione carried Harry, his shit acting and the franchise.

Now stop making bait threads. This is a fucking textbook 200 reply bait thread

Who is the most fuckable and why is it Daniel?

Hermione was a good pusygirl.

>Harry is trying to be normal when he isn't
>Hermione is doing multiple things
>Ron is hungry
Pottery irl

imagine if Rowling had the balls to say no to the movies until 5 years after the book series finished.

Could've been actually good.

and why is that?

Imagine that someone complaining and talking about the books. Literally all of them were good besides goblet of fire and half blood prince was the first one made after the books were released and it shows, the last three are great

This garbage is only as popular as it is, is because of how it released though

Umm they were all critically and financially acclaimed, a overwhelming majority of people thought they were good. Which is why you edgy redditors and bookfags meme so much.

But we got to see the actors grow on screen before our eyes (if you bingewatch the series today)

Radcliffe is the only good one, plus he actually has range

They made them at the perfect time if not the only time possible. The entire cast is GOAT. There will never been an ensemble like it that was so well cast. Sounds like you just want to throw shade at Rowling, she wanted Terry Gilliam to originally direct and the studio declined.

Emma is the only good actor. Grint was good for Ron. Daniel is shit and has zero range. And he's a manlet.

Im pretty sure I have seen this exact same thread with exact same replies some months ago. Hiro? is this one of your fuckeries?

I love how Sup Forums thinks Radcliffe can act, he can't. This is entirely true, they carried him.

The cast was good but because there was a 2.5 hour limit the writers left too many small details of the plot out in the later movies.
As a result the movies can't stand on their own if you don't already know the story from the books.

Pretty much this. Ging was very passable in the Kieslowski tier meme flick, but thats about it. Watson quite literally only plays her self in poorly done accents

Her attempt at satire in TBR was laughable and on par with Morgan Saylor in "White Girl"

But you're wrong they all stand on their own completely. Lmao plotfags

You couldn't make them better. The are complementary and standalone.

here

Don't get me wrong they're comfy enough in their own way, but not one of them is without severe sections of cringe. It should be a TV series really, seeing as it's ultimately more Miss Marple than Lord of the Ring.

Daniel Radcliffe can't act, he's bland and forgettable, plus a fucking manlet. Grint was pretty decent even if he was just a comedic relief. Emma Watson is the only one having an ounce of talent and I actually would've rather watched a female Potter with her as the lead.

Emma Watson is the only good one. She was fucking hilarious on TBR and still triggers faggots over it

>tv
>anime
This post is cancer, sage

>go to catalog
>search "img_"
>all those threads made within the same hour
holy shit you might be right. he(hiro) was already caught using a bot to spam other threads before

Radclife was terrible Grint and Watson were actually good, both were great comic relief characters and nailed their caricatures. They also had dramatic chops. Radcliffe was actually kind of bad whenever he was supposed to be serious

>you're wrong
nice counterargument

DREADFUL

I never felt like I didn't know what happened or what was going on and I've never read the books

just post the pasta

I said they stand out on their own faggot. Just admit you hate them it's quite obvious. They were much better than books 5-7 and the only one that was butchered was 4 1-3 were great film adaptations. They are all standalone movies and part of a progression
see
only a retard couldnt follow along you are just throwing things and trying to make them stick

No matter how enchanting the performances from Ron and Hermione were they still happened in 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.

Not even hating on modern day British royalty is more pathetic than liking one of dullest shitposts in the history of Sup Forums shitposts. Each shitpost following /lit/ NEETs and their pals from /r9k/ as they fight assorted kinographers has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the lack of film analysis the shitpost's only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of images and pasta to make fantasy unfantastical, to make witchcraft seem plebeian.

Perhaps the die was cast when Quentin vetoed the idea of shitposting on /lit/. Posting the pasta on Sup Forums, he made sure it would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for his (You)s. The shitpost might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly anti-intellectual in its refusal of critique and watching for the plot. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the shitposts are f-funny though
"No!"

The writing is dreadful; the main text is terrible and the troll jpg isn't much better. As I read, I noticed that every time he shitposts, Quentin writes that "Atlas Shrugged is a God-tier form of art."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that shitpost was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several hundred thousand times. I was incredulous. The shitposter's mind is so governed by spamming and repetition that he has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of the shitpost by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of: "If these kids are shitposting 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 shitpost you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

very true
in before the meta pastaedditor tries to play it off

I don't hate them nigger I just watched all of them in 2 days.
I'm saying they don't stand alone because they leave out details from earlier in the books and then bring something into the dialogue in later scenes that builds on the detail they left out. Obviously the main plot is still easy to follow but the final cuts of the movies look hodgepodgy because some of the dialogue with characters who aren't harry, ron, or hermoine lacks any context.

Nah I disagree then actually imo, got everything across that was needed, there was a ton of fat to be cut. Could OOTP been three hours? Yes and it was but they cut filmed footage. I dont believe more is necessarily better. Sometimes less is more. They focused on what they needed to and i would take 2 hr 20 min or 2 hr 30 min tight adaptations than three hours which are poorly paced because you are adding random everyday shit from the books. I like the HP runtimes more than the LOTR ones.

It's really a difficult task because of the bevy of characters you have to focus and make the film different its a different medium. I think The first three and the last three succeeded the most and surely succeeding in bringing the story and translating it well on screen to make you care about the story and characters. You're right but even if these were 3 hours there still would have been things cut and lots of it, so just because its longer doesnt mean its better. After Voldemort returns they really start to center on harry and the trio. Which is what you would do with such a big task, the books were huge