In this dullest franchise sorting hat said that he could achieve greatness in Slytherin...

In this dullest franchise sorting hat said that he could achieve greatness in Slytherin, but does Harry even have any real Slytherin qualities apart from talking with snakes?

Narcissism

>does the character possess any snake-like qualities other than the fact that he can literally communicate with snakes? pshh

He's a twat

Master HP has many qualities. He is a true gentleman and is known for casting many a Wine-Out-of-Nowhere spells in good company.

Take your average "pot of coffee by day, glass of wine by night" kind of guy. Triple that and you have Harry.

Not really. I mean, the hat alluded to him being kind of ambitious but he's really a slacker who only gets carried by some natural talent in Defense Against the Dark Arts. And I think he did okay in Charms. Which is weird since he's so in love with Hogwarts.

The hat got confused by the horcrux on Harry's forehead which was a part of Voldemort's soul

That's how I interpreted it too.

>Harry even have any real Slytherin qualities
He literally has Voldemorts soul in in him.

I don't know if Rowling planned things that far in advance

So, Harry was at best average student who wasn't even willing to work hard, now imagine if Volandemort was gone for good, would Harry even do anything meaningful in his life?

He does more so in the books. He's highly ambitious and has a desire to prove himself. Book Harry is much more arrogant and sometimes downright mean spirited. Movie Harry is a Mary Sue.

shitpost on wizardchan

Book Harry is a genuinely more interesting and multi-layered character, especially in the later books where he has a bit of a mean and spiteful streak to him. It's a shame the movies didn't have the balls to show that.

Me? I'd sort this thread into the house of "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.

>"No!"
Love this part

Harry might have desired to become a great wizard thinking it would have made his parents proud of him.

He would have accomplished more in Slytherin.

He enjoys the buttsex

*yawn*
This pasta aged like milk

...