>>64296225

You said it yourself: he had a terrible upbringing. Why would he suddenly be well adjusted and responsible? It makes total sense that he would have more in common with a poorfag like Ron.

If Dumbledore wasn't such a hack everything would've been so much easier, it wasn't Harrys fault

>>64296293
If you knew a powerful wizard psychopath was trying to kill you, wouldn't you try and learn some decent magic?

Honestly Harry comes off as ungrateful a lot of the time, in regards to his view on learning magic and his schoolwork

He doesn't even go and visit Hagrid anymore after the first few books, only when he wants something from him

>>64296293
If I had an upbringing like him and then one day found out I was magic and that I could improve my magic by studying and practising under the supervision of teachers I would put in 100% to be the best I could be. As a frogposting neet I cam I understand what it means to have absolute zero motivation, but even I would put in the effort to do well in classes if they were about literal magic. It doesnt make sense for Harry to be so meh about it

File: 1451534330785.jpg (1 MB, 1596x2852) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 1596x2852

You know when I think about it Harry Potter was easily 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 seriesüf 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 itüfs 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 are g-g-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

>>64296590
>>64296503

Well Ron's family is magic and they're still poor. They can literally conjure food from air but are too lazy to capitalize I their abilities to gyp muggles. People in the Harry potter universe just suck, probably because they were written by a britbong hack with depression.

He's agood guy, but a poor wizard, the dursley did everything to stifle his powers

>>64296717
>post yfw the Dursleys were so horrible because they were constantly around a Horcrux for 11 years

>>64296771
Is this true. Non-Potter fan here, and this really sounds like a cop-out

>>64297161
No it's not true, lol

But it likely did have some influence. They were just legitimately nasty people though.

>>64297161
Harry is a horcrux, so yes, this is true.