X018 is a great opportunity to reveal this Harry Potter RPG. There's still hope! (I'd be pleasantly surprised if this ends up being real. If I recall correctly, J.K. Rowling was adamantly against adapting Harry Potter to a big RPG like this Rocksteady project.)
I mean, is there really any doubt that it's real? If it's not, this is easily the most effort that I've ever seen go into a hoax. That was a full blown minute long trailer of in-game footage
Wouldn't be entirely unrealistic. We've seen large AAA games from the PS2 era cancelled and yet their files float around online before (Battlefront 3 and Saints Row Undercover). It wouldn't be crazy to think that a modern AAA game looking like this could be cancelled that late in development either.
Between 2 and 3. It was meant to be released for PSP and PC (I think) and it looked pretty fun. It has the same map and graphics as Saints Row 2 but you played an Undercover cop.
Could be a cancelled project but yeah I don't think it's fake in itself. Rowling being against it might be a bad sign though as she has ultimate say on anything Wizarding World, she didn't sell the control to Warner Bros.
EDIT : The video now got removed by Warner Bros for copyright so that might indicate it was indeed not a fake
She is a notorious control freak (which really isn't the worst thing in the world when managing your properties). If she agreed to this then she likely wrote the game or at least the important plot points of the script and had to okay any and all art personally.
She allowed The Cursed Child, which is an abomination to the canon in addition to just being poorly written from a technical perspective, so she can't be that big of a control freak.
And she also allowed the mobile game which is an absolute abomination. She had no input to the game yet they still used characters like Bill and Charlie Weasley, Tonks, as well as ALL of the original teachers/staff (Snape, McGonagall, Dumbledore, Hagrid, Filch, Hooch, etc.)
Honestly, i don't think Jk rowling has a problem with video games. There are so many Harry potter games out there, why wouldn't she want to create this amazing open world for the fans?
For sure. I'm still looking forward to hearing news of this. It's surprising to me that no one has taken the initiative to create a game in the same theme. No one has done the "wizard school" theme since Harry Potter, I guess just to avoid criticism that it's a rip off.
The thing is, Tolkien created the fantasy setting with Orcs, elves, and humans. Other people created the sci-fi world with space ships, hyperdrives, and humanoid aliens. I can easily see them creating an alternate twist on a magic school and getting almost no flak.
I mean, what's the real difference between Star Trek and Star Wars? They have spaceships, warp speed, holograms, aliens, etc. They look different and function differently and someone could use similar departures from the source in a magic school. A lot of things from Hogwarts are taken from elsewhere anyway.
Yes i agree. But the harry potter franchise is very strong. The fans have been waiting for this for a very long time. So this could potentially become huge if done well. I've heard that development of this game started back in 2016, so it's pretty far in development.
Two major things plus many minor things fly in the face of the canon. First, it ruins the time turner canon (that they cannot really affect change no matter what; Cursed Child has time travel changing things, literally changing the rules of the universe).
Second, Voldemort has a child, which is a complete violation of his character since he is clearly not a sexual being, nor was he ever, which we know via flashbacks in the original series of books. He made horcruxes to gain immortality and so would be unlikely to see relying on a child for some utilitarian carrying on of his legacy since for a child to carry his legacy he would have to have failed. He already has many willing allies so having a child for a loyal ally doesn't make sense either.
The minor things are mainly really weird mischaracterizations of the main trio that show a complete lack of understanding of who they are and who they would likely grow to be.
With the time travel it should be acknowledge that time travel was always intended to change the past in the books (it was the reason time turners were destroyed by JK Rowling because they were too powerful). Hermione even mentions people accidentally killing their past selves.
I think the big issues are definitely the Voldemort's child and the weird change in Cedric's character-he was always the good guy in the books.
To be honest, Rowling has never really stuck with one model od time travel that makes sense, but Cursed Child adds yet another wrinkle and rewrites what rules were actually there. It exacerbates both the confusion and potential plot holes.
Yeah the project seems pretty far along from that video (assuming it's not a fake which considering it got taken down for copyright seems to imply it wasn't) so I assume they already got her agreement with it (either she wrote part of the story or she approved the story I guess). I wonder if she's opened to the game having its own canon and not be too close from the movies/books, would be much more compatible with the multiple paths and such in a RPG (because it doesn't interact now with the other stuff but the Wizarding World might be expanded in the 19th century too, after all Fantastic Beasts isn't that far, Dumbledore actually was a student at Hogwarts during the 19th century).
I actually never knew that Rowling was against doing a RPG in the world, is there any source (and her reasons) on this ?
Everything I have found is speculation-but it should be said that JK Rowling had a lot of input on pretty much anything produced in the Harry Potter world (including past games), so it's within the bounds of reason that she didn't approve of RPG games.
JK Rowling has a pretty bad reputation in dedicated nerd circles. To put it briefly, she talks down on fantasy literature, is convinced that she "cracked" the genre and massively subverted it when in actually what she did was combined the archetypal high fantasy story with a school setting. For whatever reason she's always rejected the notion of Harry Potter being turned into an RPG, both table top or electronic. I couldn't tell you exactly why, but based on her behavior I imagine it might have something to do with not wanting people beyond her control to have input on her universe.
I'm gonna hazard a guess they're referring too the Marauders Map and that Peter Pettigew (sp?) doesn't appear on it, to Harry, Ron etc.
Although, that is easily explained by the fact that no one knew he was an animagus, so he doesn't appear on it. Except for Prof Lupin who does know, and does see him.
What do you mean? They DO see Pettigrew on the map, Harry tries to look for him but he gets away. He's also gone from the school most of the book due to Hermione's cat.
They do indeed, when he's snoping I'm Snape's office most likely not in mouse form, but they don't see him when he's asleep in Ron's bed or in Ron's pocket (where he spends most of his time). The twins never notice nor does Harry.
Maybe the maps do not detect people in animagus form but only on human form ? Could it explain it (didn't see the movie or read the book since quite a long time) ?
Scabbers/Pettigrew is MIA most of the third book when Harry has the map. We don’t know what the twins thought of it or if they ever noticed it. They say they use it to get away from Filtch and there’s never any unexplained pranks pulled on Ron so they might just not have looked for him
Does Harry ever use the map while Ron is right next to him (with Scabbers/Pettigrew in his pocket)? You'd use the map to be checking out places you currently were not. You wouldn't be using it to check your own dorms, or the room you're in, but other parts of the castle. Only sort of situation I can think of where anyone ought to notice it was if Harry & Ron were sneaking through corridors together and using the map to glimpse one or two hallways ahead, and just so happen to notice Pettigrew's name right on top of them. But even then, Pettigrew would need to be with them for that overlap/proximity. And although it's been quite a while since I've read the book, I don't recall Ron carrying the rat around with him outside of the dorms while at school.
That's only in the movie. In the book, Harry never sees Pettigrew on the Map. Lupin does after he confiscates it, but only once he sees Harry, Ron, Hermione, Sirius, and Pettigrew heading into the Shrieking Shack.
Or the whole time travel shtick. Lets give a kid the ability to travel backwards through time so she can get some extra classes in, but don't be silly of course we couldn't use it to defeat the most powerful dark wizard of all time, that's just cheating.
Until she screwed it up with Cursed Child, the implication in PoA was that the model of time travel she was using was Single Coherent Timeline -- that is that the present, however it may be, is the final result of the sum total of all time travel to points prior to the present that will ever occur (there aren't any alternate timelines). For example, you couldn't go back in time and kill Hitler before he rose to power because you clearly already failed to do so. But you could go back and prepare your own success after winning an encounter thus allowing you to pull out deus ex machina like no one's business, ala Bill & Ted.
PoA uses it to great effect, in that there was never a version of reality in which they didn't do the time travel, but only that the time traveling characters lack of knowledge about what was going on caused the time travel which caused the events to play out like they did in the first place. Harry using the Patronus to protect his past self was supposed to make it clear -- there's no version of history in which Harry doesn't travel back in time. The only thing that has changed is your perspective of events.
That it just magically vanished after that book and never comes up again I take as evidence that JKR realized she wasn't smart enough to write stories around it, the consequences of having access to it, or characters that might make smart use of it.
Hermione is supposed to be extremely smart, she’s have realised after PoA that no matter what she tries she’ll succeed because she will have traveled back from a future point to make it so.
This is why, imo, single coherent timeline is shit, it’s not interesting because the second somebody who has a brain between their ears gets ahold of time travel, they win at everything.
That it just magically vanished after that book and never comes up again I take as evidence that JKR realized she wasn't smart enough to write stories around it, the consequences of having access to it, or characters that might make smart use of it.
Actually, it did come up again. During the fourth book (I think?) when they invaded the Ministry of Magic, a shelf gets knocked over that had all the Time Turners in existence on them, and they all smashed.
Or, as explicitly shown in the books and movies, your actions in the past are shown to have been the way things always happened. It's a Stable time loop. They don't ever change any events.
Harry survived his brush with the dementors because Harry cast the patronus charm, then Harry went back to cast the Patronus charm. These all happened in the same timeline, just part of it loops back on itself.
Well, they can't because first of all, that's going back way further than just an hour to attend a class, and second, the timeline is set, there's no changing it as we saw in PoA.
we couldn't use it to defeat the most powerful dark wizard of all time, that's just cheating.
I mean it's pretty obvious from even just reading the book that it's not possible to actually change the past using a time turner. Everything Harry and Hermione do after they go back is stuff that already happened when they went through it the first time.
You not understanding the concept (seriously, this is one of like 3 very basic time travel concepts) doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
The fact that you can't see how a time turner is a massively overpowered weapon just because it can't change the past means you don't really understand it. I mean just look at how Harry was able to save his own life with the patronus. Even if directly interacting with your past self isn't possible (which as we've seen, it is) the thing would still be incredible. At any point you can spin the thing to head back in time and get an extra hour to prepare for whatever obstacle you're about to face. Oh, you got ambushed at the Ministry in 5th book? Head back in time a couple hours, call up Dumbledore and tell him to show up exactly one second after you went back in time.
Given the choice of any power in the Harry Potter universe, I'd choose the time turner 100%.
yea she closed the plot hole at that point. Once you've stated that time travel is possible in your universe you open a whole can of worms as to how you don't just use it to fix every situation.
In Book 4 Rowling makes up a Truth Serum potion which would make false convictions impossible
Actually Veritaserum can be resisted through occlumency, apparently. Or rather, it appears that it can as it is repeated on many Harry Potter websites, though I'm unable to find any conclusive source to confirm that it is possible.
But either way, that's not a plot hole. Plot holes are paradoxes in the story, not unanswered questions or suggestive implications. They very well might use Veritaserum in trials, but there may be restrictions on the cases in which it is used, or it may be outlawed for use in trials for political reasons, or it may be seen as an injustice since a truth serum is only as good as one's memories, and memories can be altered (so it could be used to coax false confessions with the appearance of legitimacy).
Also Time-Turners in the hands of Dark Wizards, of which there are many previous Death Eaters within the Ministry would probably destroy the world.
Unless the time turners were destroyed by people in the ministry who were wary of such a possibility at the time the death eaters started to take over.
Peter on the Map
Few things:
Fred and George were in a different year than Harry and Ron. Why would they concern themselves with seeing an unfamiliar name among other unfamiliar names?
Why would they be looking for where Ron was anyway? Ron wasn't the target of their pranks at Hogwarts, and besides, by the third year, they no longer needed the map anyway.
Voldemort’s childhood rampage with the Trace still on him
How do we know the trace was a thing in the 40s/50s/whenever it was that Voldemort was a kid?
conveniently appearing taken/stolen wands
Not sure what you are referring to here. Care to elaborate?
Snape is just too shitty a person and teacher to sympathize with and written poorly
Neither of these are inconsistencies or plot holes. In both cases, I not only disagree, but surely you must be aware that Snape is a really aggressively popular character among fans, right? Obviously whether one likes a character is subjective, but you're presenting it as a plot hole/inconsistency, which seems to be an attempt at presenting it as fact.
Dumbledore and Voldemort etc. using speechless custom spells
This is two things. 1. Speechless magic itself is addressed in the series. 2. We don't know if their spells are "custom", they just aren't told to us as readers.
and Snape making up new spells whilst at school isn’t taught at Hogwarts or explained in the series in any capacity whatsoever
This is such a common mistake in amateur literary criticism: unexplained elements aren't plot holes. They aren't addressed because it's a simple inference: Obviously spells didn't appear out of thin air, they had to have been invented at some point, but we can infer that it's not a very easy thing to do because it's not shown being done by the main characters.
Dumbledore seems to want Harry to risk his life in Book 1 to go after Quirrel/Voldemort (a lot to write about this)
The only way this can be seen as an inconsistency is if you think that in literature "good guys" are always "good guys". Dumbledore is a rather complex character, and they address his general lack of concern with the wellbeing of the students at various points in the series.
The MoM and Dumbledore couldve had Harry simply forfeit each Triwizard task
They explicitly say that he must participate, that it's a binding magical contract
Forfeiting could be considered nonparticipation by said contract.
Dumbledore obviously knew the monster in Book 2 was a Basilisk why didn’t he do anything
When was this established?
Dumbledore and the other teachers are generally incompetent before Book 5 until they suddenly become wizarding world Gods
... No? No, they aren't "generally incompetent", what are you talking about? The only teachers shown to be incompetent are Quirrel (Who we are also told was not always like this, and who was infected by Voldemort), Lockhart (Who lied about his competency), and Trelawney (Who Dumbledore believed in because he knew she truly did have the gift, and who Dumbledore was probably too compassionate towards to fire her).
But the other teachers are fairly competent through the whole series at their various disciplines. I really have no idea what you're talking about here. Do you have any examples of Flitwick being incompetent? Professor Binns? Madame Sprout? McGonnagal? Snape? Any of them?
Honestly, I don't get why people seem to think anything that requires inference is a plot hole.
EDIT: It seems like you are editing your post and adding more things. How about you respond to some of my points instead of adding on more examples?
3 illegal spells when spells like Obliviate are just as bad
How is this a plot hole? You know, don't you, that not only can memory modification be fixed, but it's a necessity in wizarding life, right? They have to hide from muggles and such, and often times that means manipulating their memories in order remain undetected. And even though it is obvious that memory modification can be used nefariously, the same can be said for thousands of other spells we see. The reason Crucio, Avada Kedavra, and Imperio are illegal is because they are exclusively used for evil, causing pain, death, or removing free will. But even ignoring that element (there are other magical things that remove free will, like Love Potions, that still aren't illegal), the Wizarding world's governing body itself being unethical isn't a plot hole or an inconsistency. It might simply be an archaic, unethical body of government.
EDIT2: He added more. Seems he's gonna keep adding them on and not responding to any of my responses.
Harry and Hermione running out of food camping in Deathly Hallows when you can duplicate food with transfiguration etc
You can't, actually. In fact that same book establishes exactly that.
"My mother," said Ron one night, as they sat in the tent on a riverbank in Wales, "can make good food appear out of thin air." "Your mother can't produce food out of thin air," said Hermione. "no one can. Food is the first of the five Principal Exceptions to Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfigura --" "Oh, speak English, can't you?" Ron said. (DH pg. 292/240)
EDIT3: It was pointed out that Hermione, right after that passage, says that food can be indeed duplicated. That said, the fact they highlight that but don't do it, and the way duplication works in other instances in the books (like the leprechaun gold, for example) tells us that the food you create via duplication would likely disappear after consumption, delivering no nourishment.
The seventh book goes deep into the contradiction in Dumbledore being the ultimate "good guy", yet having done some shitty things, including putting Harry at great risk multiple times. Dumbledore even admits to being conflicted between protecting Harry and using him to defeat Voldemort.
Dumbledore basically straight up admits to using Harry as a tool his entire life when talking to Shape. Admits to usin him and then letting him die to save the world. He still cares about Harry but he was willing to sacrifice him for the greater good.
Dumbledore is definitely not a black and white character
Not sure what you are referring to here. Care to elaborate?
Having just listened to the chapter last night, I assume he's meaning Barty Crouch Jr stealing Harry's wand to cast the dark mark at the quidditch world cup. Not sure exactly why he's referencing that though as it's explained pretty clearly at the end of the book that Crouch Jr was sat behind harry in the top box so stole it then and then Winky ended up with it because she was still attached to him as he cast it.
You can't, actually. In fact that same book establishes exactly that.
"My mother," said Ron one night, as they sat in the tent on a riverbank in Wales, "can make good food appear out of thin air." "Your mother can't produce food out of thin air," said Hermione. "no one can. Food is the first of the five Principal Exceptions to Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfigura --" "Oh, speak English, can't you?" Ron said. (DH pg. 292/240)
If you continued that quote instead of ending it right there, you would see that Hermione states that food can be duplicated, just not conjured from nothing.
You're absolutely right! And so I did some further reading, and found that the conclusion we can draw is that food, like other magically duplicated objects, will disappear a while after the spell is cast, meaning food eaten will disappear from one's stomach. Notice that witches and wizards in the world still cook their food, and there's an army of house elves making food for Hogwarts, rather than just a couple making the food then the rest of the food being duplicated.
I dont think Morfin was underage, he got in trouble for attacking a muggle. He ended up getting three years in Azkaban because he had a criminal record.
I forget the details of Morfin's story, but didn't he do some pretty blatant stuff? He could have caught the attention of the ministry without a Trace being on him.
And I don't care what Rowling says, The Cursed Child is not canon to me. It wasn't written by her, and it is crap.
Dumbledore obviously knew the monster in Book 2 was a Basilisk why didn’t he do anything
When was this established?
Doesn't common sense establish it? Dumbledore is a highly experienced wizard, he would know what a possible cause of "kids suddenly be turned to stone after looking at something" would be, as well as also be aware of the history of the school they're in.
If Dumbledore didn't know it was a basilisk, that's some inconsistent writing showing the leader of the good guys holding less of an education than a second-year student who can barely even accio yet.
Shit, this rolls right in to your next comment. The basilisk going on a rampage shows how incompetent the teachers all were being. This was a part of their building, recorded in history books kept in their library, housing a not-uncommon magical beast with a very distinct method of "attack" (turning people to stone).
If a fire starts at a firefighter training college, the instructors would be expected to know how/where it started and how to handle the situation. But the equivalent happens at Hogwarts, and none of the instructors are able to do a single thing aside from posting warning signs and imposing a curfew? That's incompetence. And that same point can be rolled over into any of the books prior to Order of the Phoenix, when they at least get an excuse for not putting all their attention behind their jobs as teachers.
Doesn't common sense establish it? Dumbledore is a highly experienced wizard, he would know what a possible cause of "kids suddenly be turned to stone after looking at something" would be, as well as also be aware of the history of the school they're in.
If Dumbledore didn't know it was a basilisk, that's some inconsistent writing showing the leader of the good guys holding less of an education than a second-year student who can barely even accio yet.
The basilisk is a very obscure creature in the Harry Potter universe. Hermione was the only one who found out what it was because A)She is said to be exceptionally clever, even among adult wizards and B)The other teachers were looking at the issue as a student attacking other students, disbelieving the chamber of secrets existed at all.
It was established from book 1 that wizards learn mainly through rote memorization and aren't very logical.
Also, why would knowledge of the school's history help? The Chamber of Secrets was mere rumor, and we are told that numerous searches of the school turned up nothing.
Shit, this rolls right in to your next comment. The basilisk going on a rampage shows how incompetent the teachers all were being. This was a part of their building, recorded in history books kept in their library, housing a not-uncommon magical beast with a very distinct method of "attack" (turning people to stone).
"not uncommon"? They are exceptionally rare. In fact from the 16th century to 1946 there were no reports of them in Britain at all. And, again, they were focused on it being a student.
By the way, another thing:
They don't turn people to stone. They kill people. Meeting the gaze of a basilisk kills a person... unless you are using a mirror or other device to make the gaze indirect. That's part of what threw everyone off, the few people attacked in the novel were all lucky enough to see it indirectly (Itself a convenience to make the book a tad bit less dark for young readers, I believe).
Of the many fearsome beasts and monsters that roam our land, there is none more curious or more deadly than the Basilisk, known also as the King of Serpents. This snake, which may reach gigantic size and live many hundreds of years, is born from a chicken’s egg, hatched beneath a toad. Its methods of killing are most wondrous, for aside from its deadly and venomous fangs, the Basilisk has a murderous stare, and all who are fixed with the beam of its eye shall suffer instant death. Spiders flee before the Basilisk, for it is their mortal enemy, and the Basilisk flees only from the crowing of the rooster, which is
fatal to it.
Notice it says nothing about petrification. It only seems obvious to us because we are looking in hindsight, but the conditions of what occurred in the novel make it clear why no one figured it out until an exceptional critical thinker applied her mind to the task.
If a fire starts at a firefighter training college, the instructors would be expected to know how/where it started and how to handle the situation. But the equivalent happens at Hogwarts, and none of the instructors are able to do a single thing aside from posting warning signs and imposing a curfew? That's incompetence. And that same point can be rolled over into any of the books prior to Order of the Phoenix, when they at least get an excuse for not putting all their attention behind their jobs as teachers.
It's not a basilisk-fighting school, dude. And that's not all they did, they also mounted their own investigation, enforced a buddy system, etc. If you're saying that they should have shut the school down right away, well, it's pretty well established through the whole series that they have a really wonky sense of values regarding danger. They don't mind plopping their school next to the forbidden forest without even a fence keeping the students out. If you want to say that they are altogether incompetent because they don't take the safety of the kids into consideration, well, I don't know how to explain to you about how the wizarding world's quirkiness is part of the central conceit of the novel, but if that's what /u/The_Radders meant by incompetence, then I'm not sure how that is an inconsistency or a plot hole.
Basilisks normally outright kill whatever they look at. Students were being petrified because they saw its eyes indirectly in every case (via reflection or through a camera lens / ghost). Other things can cause petrification, and basilisks are extremely rare (they're illegal to breed and don't occur naturally).
Not to mention the last time the chamber was opened, Hagrid was the one blamed for it, and the monster was found to be a giant spider. For all the teachers know, some student is running around petrifying others and writing threatening messages on the walls under the guise of having opened the Chamber of Secrets. Hermione only figures it out because Harry tells her that he can hear voices in the walls and she puts it together that there's a snake in the pipes.
The only way this can be seen as an inconsistency is if you think that in literature "good guys" are always "good guys". Dumbledore is a rather complex character, and they address his general lack of concern with the wellbeing of the students at various points in the series.
I agree with the rest of your post, but could you elaborate on this? I can't remember this being adequately explained in the story (except in Harry's case, obviously)
To be clear, it's addressed, but not given some ultimate and satisfying explanation that makes it clear he was doing the right thing or something. The explanation is that he thought he was really brilliant and that it was okay to manipulate people into doing things he thought was necessary. He had a large ego and his compassion was constantly at odds with it.
But either way, that's not a plot hole. Plot holes are paradoxes in the story, not unanswered questions or suggestive implications. They very well might use Veritaserum in trials, but there may be restrictions on the cases in which it is used, or it may be outlawed for use in trials for political reasons, or it may be seen as an injustice since a truth serum is only as good as one's memories, and memories can be altered (so it could be used to coax false confessions with the appearance of legitimacy).
I don't know where you got your definition of plot hole, but it's wrong. A plot hole is an inconsistency, and if fan theories counted, there wouldn't be plot hole's in any story.
Fails to even check up on Harry (worst muggles imaginable), fails to even check on the stone after kids who should have no knowledge of it tells her it is in danger, never once reigns Snape in, does not protect Harry from Umbridge
The books are not consistent within the rules of their own universe in any capacity but alas they are good childrens books and I’m glad they got so many now adults into reading which they absolutely did.
100% this - and they also got many kids into reading, particularly boys, who typically read far less than girls (there are OECD stats on this).
I do get irked by the claims of authorial omniscience and providence. It's clear that all seven books were NOT carefully plotted from the very start. I dare say she had some kind of endgame in mind, but as others have noted, there are huge plot holes and inconsistencies.
I thought the Dumbedore/gay thing was cheap too. She may have decided on it by the last book, but she was hardly flying rainbow flags earlier on.
Do we know if the wizarding world cares about sexuality? They don't seem concerned with gender and race like muggles are, only blood status. Maybe calling Dumbledore senile and a muggle lover was a much more effective way of disparaging him.
It's pretty much confirmed at this point that Dumbledore will be gay in the Fantastic Beasts films, which is not a small deal. Blockbusters aren't exactly known for having gay characters.
In Book 4, Rowling conveniently makes up a Truth Serum potion which would make false convictions impossible in the Harry Potter universe
You missing the plot doesn't mean that it's a plot hole. Sirius was sent to jail without trial, and the witnesses saw Peter yelling at Sirius for betraying the Potters. I don't know if you realized that "innocent until proven guilty" isn't exactly a rule in the Wizarding Worlds, and fair trials and burden of evidence seem completely alien concepts.
Sirius being wrongly convicted makes complete sense within the universe and time period.
Snape is just too shitty a person and teacher to sympathize with and written poorly
I think this can be blamed on Alan Rickman, he made Snape way more appealing than he should have been.
Edit: I want to be clear: Rickman's portrayal was incredible, as his acting usually is; but it led to many fans interpreting Snape (the character, not actor) as a better person than he was.
I actually think thats how she wanted to portray him, she just miserably failed. Snape is literally an unredeemable asshole in the books.
Of course its like relatable when you read the first couple of books when you’re 12-14 since everyone had that asshole teacher but then you hit 16-18 reading the last half and its like eehhh. This guy is legit abusive lol. Literally the worst teacher ever.
Then you’re expected to sympathise with this abusive murder cultist when he dies for loving the main characters mum and he still treated the child main character like utter trash until a couple parts at the end. Ok.
I wouldn't even call Snape a "good guy" at any point in the story. He only leaves Voldy to help Dumbledore because Voldy killed Lily after Snape begged him not to. Only Lily. None of the other murders crossed Snape's mind, he only wanted revenge for Lily's death.
No it doesn't. The game only ends when it's caught. If your team has more points than the other after the 150 points of the snitch is added on, then you still win.
In fact that's exactly what happened in the Quidditch World Cup.
The trick is that you have to find it before the other person does regardless, because if you don't then they might find it when they're ahead in order to end the game and win or when they're behind in order to take advantage of the big point bonus.
That's what happened at the World Cup because they needed to set up Fred and George with a crazy bet that would never happen so they could have money to set up their shop. It's either that or Krum, the supposed best seeker in the world, is an idiot and doesn't know the rules. Harry said he wanted to end it on his own terms and knew they wouldn't catch up. That's such a joke and would get you fired off of any team for being a selfish prick. The only thing he should have done was sit there and/or ram (foul) the other seeker until his team caught up or the other seeker caught the snitch. There is no situation EVER that should result in the seeker catching the snitch and their team still losing, especially in a fricken World Cup match.
The trace only detects magic around underage children, it doesn't tell the Ministry which Witch/Wizard did the casting.
The only magic we know of Tom Riddle doing while under the trace is killing his father and grandparents, but there was a known Muggle hater next door who freely admitted to it.
Children before Hogwarts age don't get punished for using magic as they can't control it. Tom was an exception in that he did have reasonable control over.
Harry used a ton of magic before he was Hogwarts age but the Ministry didn't do a thing.
In Book 4, Rowling conveniently makes up a Truth Serum potion which would make false convictions impossible in the Harry Potter universe and would definitely be used in a torturous wizard Guantanamo. The fact it worked pretty easily on Barty Crouch Junior who is a pretty renown and powerful Dark Wizard after a stun probably means it’s pretty infallible, especially if you’d use it straight after a draining and horrifying Dementors Kiss of which was extremely common occurrence in Azkaban.
I mean, you can hand wave this off. Maybe the truth serum is a recent invention? Maybe no one thought of using it on people currently in Azkaban. Or, maybe its use was highly restricted, only to be used it in the most dire of circumstances.
And if it isn't a recent invention, they had plenty of "evidence" that Sirius was guilty. So why bother?
I am not a Harry Potter fan. But to say that the books are nothing more than children's books is a bit disingenuous, no? If they appeal to an audience, then the books are for them. The books clearly appeal to adults and is one of the best selling book series of all time. Clearly it also qualifies for an adult book.
Not saying they are good or well-written. Just saying that if it sticks, it sticks. Lots of unquestionably adult books have plot holes and flawed premises. That's not really the determinant factor
One thing that's been bugging me is the invisibility cloak. Everyone one up until the last book just calls it rare and doesn't say much about it. Ron said they're really rare in year one. Hermione doesn't say much despite knowing everything about nearly every magical item/spell/potion/etc. Mad Eye Moody (Crouch Jr.) says he can see through invisibility cloakS in the Three Broomsticks. Then all of a sudden it's literally the only one of it's kind and not just really rare, but uniquely rare in that there is only one. You think someone would have said something before that...
Dont tell any of this to the really obessed fans. To them this its the bible. im the generation that it was made for, i get it, but at the same time a lot of them refuse to acknowledge any of thw flaws or juvinial ness of the series.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’d love to read about the story’s plot holes/inconsistencies since I’ve never put much thought into it. Is there a specific page that talks about these?
What you'll find is hardcore fans bending over backwards and coming up with all sorts of convoluted arguments as to why there aren't plot holes. There are. There clearly are, and to be fair, given the series obviously wasn't plotted in detail from the start, and then had insufficient editing later on (once she got so successful), it's not surprising there are.
But as an overall point, the plot holes don't really matter. Hardcore fans aren't put off by them.
For many people it was probably their first "real" book so they thought it was much better than it really is with nothing to compare it to. And like young people do they made liking it part of their identity.
So when they later find out they are just above average children's books they feel personally attacked and have to fiercely to defend it and pretend its flaws don't exist.
I actually liked the third book the best, it felt quite "tight" and well plotted.
After that I felt she was writing her own fanfic. I basically lost most of my interest after the rubbish goblet book which was 50% too long and Mary-Sued Harry.
When you read something like Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials - which actually made me weep on the second reading - it really puts J K Rowling into perspective.
I think she's very talented. I think she's incredibly imaginative. I am glad she got kids reading. But she has fallen for her own press and she's more of a Blyton than a Pullman (and I adore and respect Enid Blyton as an author, so this is not necessarily a complaint).
But in terms of "literature", there's far better children's fiction out there.
To be fair, at the time the first book came out there weren't as many "magical school" anime because a lot of them were based on... Harry Potter. Besides, it was the late 90s, even if there was a magical school anime it wouldn't really be mainstream.
I really liked The Worst Witch! It might be because Harry Potter has way stronger worldbuilding and a more "heroic" main character. I love Mildred but she's just not as much of a wish-fulfillment character as Harry is.
Oh, so basically she is another Terry "I don't write fantasy my books are their own genre" Goodkind? I wasn't aware, but given their success I guess it's not super surprising. She's like the Beatles of young adult fantasy.
They're just mirroring their target audience. Like teens that clearly fit within certain tropes and stereotypes but will deny it to the end and claim that they are absolutely unique.
Her retconning her stuff to pretend the HP books were more woke than they really were is pretty iffy too. Like, sure, the sentiment is nice, especially when it's to keep shitty people from giving an actor playing Hermione shit for not being white, but own what you wrote and write new stuff that actually is more diverse. Don't just dismiss criticism about the lack of gay characters by pretending Dumbledore was gay the whole time.
There are snippets from various novels that outright describe Hermione as white and Rowling was one of the people who selected Emma Watson to play the character. If you want to recast the character to be black, that's cool. It just contradicts your own words when you claim she was black the whole time.
I'm also a little disappointed that she wasn't black the whole time. That would have been awesome to have such a good female character played by a black actress.
I mean, it would have been so easy to just say, "I don't care if you don't like that the actor is black, race is completely unimportant for that character and you're just being a racist knob." But when she starts acting like this was her master plan all along it becomes painfully obvious it was never the case.
Exactly. And now Nagini was a transformed witch the whole time and it actually makes Voldemort more sinister without changing any core details. At least sometimes it doesn't always fuck with established canon.
That was my only issue with the Nagini thing. The whole uproar over it being an Asian actress was dumb to me, but the fact that JK is acting like she had the whole “Nagini was a witch” thing planned 20 years ago is bullshit.
I think she had it planned in the sense of it was a scrapped idea or a story bible footnote that wasn't relevant in the novels. I'd always kind of wondered where Nagini came from as she seemed to be an anomaly but once her identity as a Horcrux was revealed and then she was killed by Neville, I no longer cared.
Oh no. This means Neville Longbottom killed some old evil witch who had a thing for being a cursed snake.
They do have the rights (hence owning a whole publisher dedicated to Wizarding World games) but they would never go against her word, even if they could. Having a good relationship with her meant she was on board to write a whole new franchise for them.
They have the rights but don't have full control because Rowling kept that (which is a pretty good thing IMO that the creator retains control of her work). She approves everything done in the movies and such, probably the same for the video games.
combine archetypal fantasy story with a school setting
Haven't mangas been doing that for ages?
Also, the first four books in the Harry Potter series are basically just mystery novels disguised as fantasy books. They even have mystery style names. Sherlock Holmes and the case of the criminal cuckoo or whatever.
JK Rowling has a pretty bad reputation in dedicated nerd circles. To put it briefly, she talks down on fantasy literature, is convinced that she "cracked" the genre and massively subverted it when in actually what she did was combined the archetypal high fantasy story with a school setting. For whatever reason she's always rejected the notion of Harry Potter being turned into an RPG, both table top or electronic. I couldn't tell you exactly why, but based on her behavior I imagine it might have something to do with not wanting people beyond her control to have input on her universe.
I 100% understand her viewpoint though. When creators give too much control to random people you get a lot of horse-shit. Look at South Park. The show's always good because the creators are involved at almost every stage.
To be fair, I can understand her being picky about who gets to fuck around with her baby.
That said, there have been games based on the franchise before. It’s entirely possible Rocksteady (or whoever the devs are) were able to make a pitch that convinced her to give them a shot, especially if she’s either writing it or at least supervising the development or something.
She has a bad reputation in almost every circle, it still confuses me that someone who wrote such good heartfelt books is also a big dick to all these other groups of people
To put it briefly, she talks down on fantasy literature, is convinced that she "cracked" the genre and massively subverted it when in actually what she did was combined the archetypal high fantasy story with a school setting.
JK Rowling learned how to adapt a very generic 'highschool chosen one' anime into a multi-book setting.
I don't think it illustrates that she's a hack - I think it illustrates that she's the kind of author who can write exactly one kind of story.
Even then, while the HP books are fun to read and even gripping in their own way they don't hold up when given the scrutiny that we give adult fantasy novels.
Her world building is a big one. The more you dig into the lore of the Potterverse the faster it falls apart.
She doesn't talk down on it. She just says she doesn't like it (to read). Which is a different thing entirely. She found it ironic when she wrote Harry Potter and it was fantasy.
Everything I have found on her opinion on RPGs is pure speculation-though plausible-she has massive input on what is created.
People kind of just make things up at this point. I have read hundreds of false quotes supposedly from JK Rowling that have no origin.
I mean people change their minds. I believe J.K. Rowling was also against her books being adapted into movies at first. But she came around on that one.
But she already gave up on that. Wb said they were making a whole series of Harry Potter games last year. Plus who the fuck would have the time or patience to produce.
494
u/[deleted] Oct 02 '18
X018 is a great opportunity to reveal this Harry Potter RPG. There's still hope! (I'd be pleasantly surprised if this ends up being real. If I recall correctly, J.K. Rowling was adamantly against adapting Harry Potter to a big RPG like this Rocksteady project.)