The Gaming Den

Seriously. Love the books and the movies (just watched 7.1 last night). I have always been aggravated by the lack of consistency in... not so much the magic system itself, but how the 'wizards' use it. I was really driven over the edge while rewatching Ep 6, where the Death Eaters attack The Burrows. Okay, so apparently Death Eaters have magic smog flight that I don't recall being mentioned in the books. Fine. Why are the good guys RUNNING back and forth like Glenn Danzig in The Prophecy 2? ALL OF THEM CAN FUCKING TELEPORT. And don't get me started on the combat... lordy lou. I can see their style being fine for formal duels, but where is the pragmatism? Dumbledore is a great example. This is a guy who can summon a cavern-filling holocaust of fire, and refuses to fight the people who come to arrest him because he doesn't feel like cleaning their fragments off his stuff. So why is any of the shenanigans in Ep 6 necessary? Even with some halfassed taboo against anything that wounds people on purpose... he could bust out with some Apemortis, and magic bees would shoot out of his wand and STING EVERY DEATH EATER IN THE WORLD IN THEIR FUCKING EYEBALLS. "Sorry about your bad luck, back to my knitting."

I am so full of indignation that I can't even think of more good examples. Why is the magic SO DUMB?!!!??!?!

Guess I'll have to go read "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell" again.

The best scene, err I mean where you see how dumb the magic is...
In the ministery where 30+ Witches are glorified copymachines....

I kept waiting for something "Brazil"-like to happen with that, but no...

Harry Potter is bad. Seriously bad. Late-stage Xanth novel bad. Everything that happens in the books is entirely arbitrary, usually idiotic, and only interesting when done in service of a joke. And not just throwaway things like the copywizards in the Ministry, but stuff like the entirety of Goblet of Fire. In which Voldemort's brilliant plan is:

1) Make Harry participate in the Triwizard tournament by popping his name out as the fourth name.
2) Have everyone in charge of the tournament actually go along with that, despite the fact that Harry didn't put his name in and doesn't want to compete.
3) Have Harry decide to compete, despite not wanting to and knowing that the tournament is horrendously dangerous and people are trying to kill him.
4) Have Harry WIN said tournament that he's horribly unequipped for so that ...
5) He touches the Goblet, which is secretly a Portkey that teleports him to the graveyard for the crazy "Revive Voldemort" ritual.

Even ignoring the absolute insanity of that plan and the way it could have been foiled by the heroes doing nothing. It was already established that portkey's can look like anything like a can or an old boot, and Harry could have been brought to the graveyard by paying off a house elf to give him a portkey dinner fork.

Right, all he needed was Harry's blood for the ritual... why not just have the fake Moody do it directly? "Man up, Potter, the Spartans would never have complained about losing a pint of blood."

Hey, there is an entirely sensible explanation for point 4: A death-eater messed with the maze ahead of him and sabatoged his competitors in order to ensure that would happen.

But why erect this Byzantine plot that you then have to walk the victim through anyway?

EDIT: You know, now it's starting to make sense. Maybe "wizards" are some bizarre evolutionary dead end, where the genes that let them magically increase the number of beans in the pot are preserving them in situations where intelligence/self-preservation would normally win, thereby allowing the population to have a much higher ratio of stupidity/douchebaggery than one with such a small size would normally tolerate.

Well, for Goblet of Fire, I saw it more as
Voldemort: "Crouch, get me Harry Potter! I don't care how, just get me that boy!"
Crouch: "Yes Lord Voldemort, I have just the plan, it's fool proof! Brilliant even! *maniacal laughter*"
Voldemort: "Why am I relegated to using people who are 51 cards short of a deck?"

As for why everyone just goes along with a fourth contestant, and no one lets Harry pull out, it seemed to be one of those ascended tradition things... The magic goblet picks the contestants, and people trust it, if it picked someone who didn't put their name in, and isn't old enough to compete, well, it knows what it's doing. As for why he can't back out, it's a great honor to compete, and to back out would be to lose face, for himself, his school, and his country. There's also the fact that Dumbledore, I think, suspected that it was a ploy connected to Voldemort, and that Harry had to go through it lest Voldemort do something even more dangerous.

Sectumsempra is awesome. I'd spam that shit at someone's throat.

For my next spell, I suggest "Decorporate". It cuts someone's body out from under their head.

JigokuBosatsu wrote:But why erect this Byzantine plot that you then have to walk the victim through anyway?

EDIT: You know, now it's starting to make sense. Maybe "wizards" are some bizarre evolutionary dead end, where the genes that let them magically increase the number of beans in the pot are preserving them in situations where intelligence/self-preservation would normally win, thereby allowing the population to have a much higher ratio of stupidity/douchebaggery than one with such a small size would normally tolerate.

That was always my theory. The movies downplay it a good deal, but in the books it's stressed that wizards can't even figure pants out, or any other non-magic device.

Word of the Author is that the real reason the anti-muggle sentiment is around is because a muggle with a shotun can pretty much take out wizards without any real problems.

JigokuBosatsu wrote:Right, all he needed was Harry's blood for the ritual... why not just have the fake Moody do it directly? "Man up, Potter, the Spartans would never have complained about losing a pint of blood."

He didn't need Harry's blood. He just needed the blood of an enemy.

But you have to understand, Voldemort is dumb.

Really, really, dumb.

He never emotionally grew up and his whole life and villainhood is dominated by his fear of dying.

His only threat is that he will use any spell. He has no taboos. Oh, and how he got Horcruxes and all.

But, yeah, inside, Voldemort is a kid who's afraid of the dark. He has the emotional level of a kid, too, with urges towards high drama, which accounts for his scheme with the Triwizard Cup. He wanted Harry to win the cup, presumeably at his greatest moment of victory, and then bring Harry low and use Harry's blood to Make a Statement.

That's when Voldemort lost. It took a few more years to finish, but that's when it happened. Using Harry's blood means Voldemort turned himself into Harry's 1-Up.

Orochimaru is a lot scarier. They're both similar characters--potential heroes who fell from grace because of their fascination with the dark side of their respective magic stuff. Both mentored by powerful people, they both delved into Ye Forbidden Artes and that led to their downfall.

Orochimaru, though, is a lot more cold-blooded and his reason for wanting to live forever is more understandable to me. Orochimaru takes the view that there will -always- be new knowledge, new things to learn, and no single lifetime could be enough. Orochimaru says "The world is just this awesome, I don't want to leave.". His whole Supah Forbidden Evil Immortality is just a means to that end.

Voldemort's...he just doesn't want to die, because he's afraid of the unknown.

The best explanations for Voldemort I've seen is that most dark wizards only do one horcrux, if at all. By making a shitload of them his remaining soul kept getting smaller as he went on, making him crazier and unstable. Hell, his last one was done by accident, which should show how much of a bad idea it is to have so many of the damn things.

I mean, think about it. He's some start pupil in school and is apparently really smart and charismatic. And...look at how he rolls in the series. Something obviously happened and it's probably the horcruxes.

I just decided to read up on how harry potter ends (I never finished the last book). Now I realize why I didn't finish the series. Everything ever is a Chekhov's Gun without any rhyme or reason.

One thing that really struck me is... why doesn't everyone use Accio for basically everything? I mean, seriously, unless there are some really straight up dumb consequences, like "Accio Orange Juice" makes the jug smash its way through your fridge and beat you over the head without a glass, I'd sure as hell use it for shit like that. And the people in the series aren't even using it for something like "Silent Accio Bellatrix's Wand before she realizes I'm here" so what the fuck?

Then of course we have the usual heroic bullshit of "I love you, and we're great together, but I'm breaking up with you because I'm a selfish git who needs to be seen as noble don't want you to be in danger" when really what a hero needs to do when their SO is actually better at their trade than they are is sit down and discuss what's going on and what's going to happen rather than just a "you have no choice in the matter, I'm going to go commit villain assisted suicide"

At some point you have to realize that Voldemort doesn't do stuff because he has psychological problems, he does stuff because the writing is bad.

The Goblet of Fire plan was retarded. Even as drama, it fails.

-Username17

Hm, honestly, Frank has a point, it's not like Rowling had it in the back of her mind that Voldemort and Co. needed shit plans because they're insane, it's rather that Rowling is not a genius, she's a mother who started telling stories to her kids and said "hey, I could make money with this," so yeah, there are shit plans with holes.

On the other hand, we can choose to interpret it in the way that makes sense in the story.

I've never read the books but I plain did not understand what the hell happened in the Goblet of Fire film. I'm not sure I'm surprised it's not coherent in the book either.

The attitude people have towards magic items in the setting always struck me as particularly odd. I don't understand why the sorting hat exists, or the deference they showed to the goblet.

For that matter I didn't understand the bit in the film where they had to rescue the trapped students from the mermaids, either. Were those students in danger of death, and if they'd died who'd have been responsible? There's just some serious ethical issues with randomly abducting people and risking their lives in some competition, was that bit any better in the book?

Sarandosil wrote:There's just some serious ethical issues with randomly abducting people and risking their lives in some competition, was that bit any better in the book?

No. no it wasn't. They were seriously okay with that.

If Muggle policies applied to the magical world, that school would have been shut down in the first book for various offences. Like "a troll got in. How?" (followed up by "So it didn't break a wall down, so some might argue it was an inside job."), or "About that deadly Cerberus you keep there..."

Indeed, either Dumbledore was not a moral or ethical man who was totally okay with all this stuff (taking away the one defence there and meaning the school should be shut down), or he was written by an author who didn't think much.

I haven't even watched Harry Potter and the SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE yet. The book of that one was fucking awful, indeed worse than some fanfiction.

But I hear the movies serve as porn-for-teenagers, so I suppose they have some merit, just not for old folk like us.

Koumei wrote:But I hear the movies serve as porn-for-teenagers, so I suppose they have some merit, just not for old folk like us.

Emma Watson and Evanna Lynch have both gotten INCREDIBLY pretty as they've aged. Especially Evanna Lynch. I totally did see the last movie just to watch them both be pretty on screen. Plus, the shitty plot is a LOT more tolerable when you've got CG effects every two minutes looking pretty.

Granted, HP isn't as pretty as Avatar (furries; not airbenders), but the most recent movie was totally worth killing an hour and a half watching it with some friends.

Edit: http://www.harrypotterfanzone.com/wp-co ... lynch2.jpg

The wizarding world in Harry Potter is stupidly and arbitrarily dangerous, to the point where first-year students (who haven't even been taught basic combat magic) are sent out to hunt dangerous and unidentified predators, in the wilderness, at night, in an area known to contain creatures dangerous to full-fledged wizards, as detention - with only one (non-wizard) adult to supervise two hunting parties. They expose unsupervised children, deliberately and gratuitiously, to danger that muggles would probably consider unacceptable even for adult volunteers.

But I believe the thing with the mermaids and the students under the lake, at least in the book, was entirely staged--the mermaids are actually intelligent, civilized beings on friendly terms with the wizards, and agreed to act basically as referees. Harry mistook the situation and freaked out trying to "save" everyone, and his friends laugh at him afterwards.

And it was my impression that anyone whose name came out of the Goblet of Fire was magically compelled to participate in the tournament, rules and good sense be damned. Which still doesn't make that a sensible plot in any way, and they never explained exactly what form this compulsion supposedly took, but I remember a scene with people arguing that Harry should be barred, or that the other schools should also get extra participants, and being told that the organizers were somehow literally incapable of making either of those things happen.

You're all over analyzing, it's ridiculous to expect depth from a book aimed at 11-year old children. On other hand, the Harry Potter series is perfect for children, they love it.

ubernoob wrote:

Koumei wrote:But I hear the movies serve as porn-for-teenagers, so I suppose they have some merit, just not for old folk like us.

Emma Watson and Evanna Lynch have both gotten INCREDIBLY pretty as they've aged. Especially Evanna Lynch. I totally did see the last movie just to watch them both be pretty on screen. Plus, the shitty plot is a LOT more tolerable when you've got CG effects every two minutes looking pretty.

Yes. Yes they have.

I totally agree that they're entertaining movies to watch, and I basically just enjoy them and try not to think to much about it at the time. Of course, after the fact, all sorts of questions are raised. I ask my wife (who's read all the books) questions afterward, and some things are explained better in the books, and some are just, well... dumb.

So, when I see all of these powerful wizards running around in combat acting relatively stupidly, I start to wonder if maybe they're all accomplished wizards, but none of them have actually trained in combat. Kind of like the difference between someone who knows how to shoot a gun at a firing range and someone who knows how to handle themselves in a firefight.

RobbyPants wrote:

ubernoob wrote:

Koumei wrote:But I hear the movies serve as porn-for-teenagers, so I suppose they have some merit, just not for old folk like us.

Emma Watson and Evanna Lynch have both gotten INCREDIBLY pretty as they've aged. Especially Evanna Lynch. I totally did see the last movie just to watch them both be pretty on screen. Plus, the shitty plot is a LOT more tolerable when you've got CG effects every two minutes looking pretty.

Yes. Yes they have.

I totally agree that they're entertaining movies to watch, and I basically just enjoy them and try not to think to much about it at the time. Of course, after the fact, all sorts of questions are raised. I ask my wife (who's read all the books) questions afterward, and some things are explained better in the books, and some are just, well... dumb.

So, when I see all of these powerful wizards running around in combat acting relatively stupidly, I start to wonder if maybe they're all accomplished wizards, but none of them have actually trained in combat. Kind of like the difference between someone who knows how to shoot a gun at a firing range and someone who knows how to handle themselves in a firefight.

Actually, it's worse than that. Technically all wizards get some training in what to use in a fight, through wizard duels or just general knowledge picked up in Defense Against the Dark Arts, but very few get any kind of training at what to do with it all. I suppose those people who actually become aurors get some on the job training in how to fight, but it's basically sovjet era "Here's a gun, the hole goes towards the bastard you're going to try to shot, and here's the trigger, good luck" and learning by doing, which is a terrible way to learn to fight.

The kids are actually better trained in combat than something like probably 80% of the wizarding population because someone who learned by doing against an incompetent idiot, Harry, decided "you know? we're all going to die if someone doesn't teach these jack offs to defend themselves. Then maybe at least a few of us will live." And of course, like the lazy, whiny, hormone possessed idiot Harry is, he didn't want to do, for whatever reason, and had to prodded by his friends, finally deciding to do it because the girl he likes might be amongst the people trained because her last boyfriend died at the hands of said incompetent idiot and she's still fucked up over that.


...Harry's really a right fucking git, isn't he? no wonder I identify with him... I'd have been just as stupid in those situations... at least romantic interest wise...

The screwed up morality in the HP books is mostly due to Rowling's Calvinism. There's a good take on that here, but the tl;dr version is that Rowling seems to believe that a person just *is* good or evil, and their actions don't impact that.

It's insane, but there it is.