Kyle Norty actually made a great video detailing several stupid things about Harry Potter.

@@jeremyusreevu237Good for Kyle

Prisoner of Azkaban is the best and Cuaron should have directed all the rest. That is the correct opinion

2025 the Magic Arc.

I’d love to see it as a series, I’m fond of the films for nostalgic reasons but the plot gets out of hand and convoluted so quickly. It’d be great so see their responses.

You said what I felt but couldn't find the words to express it. Regarding Snape though, Alan Rickman wanted to stop portraying him for being a one note antagonist, so she told him about his character arc quite early on, therefore I'm not so sure she didn't have that one planned. Spot on in your analysis though. You have to ignore plot and world building inconsistencies in order to enjoy the series but the aspects she chooses to focus on and put some thought into are what makes it appealing to so many, plus the fact in the beginning she was mostly writing for herself, which is the reason, I imagine, the escapism and comforting aspects of it shine through the most in my eyes. This series shows me characters and atmosphere might be the most important aspects of a story, but I might be wrong on that.

If Harry Potter was just the first book, and it ends with the evil returned Voldemort being destroyed it'd be fine. However she tried to turn it into a fantasy epic spanning 7 books with EXTENSIVE worldbuilding. And she's SHIT at world building. She contradicts herself constantly, she creates ENORMOUS plot holes, ones so large it literally makes the story she is trying to tell impossible, and because a bunch of kids liked it she's the richest author in the world. She's the Michael Bay of books. Only nobody tries to argue that Michael Bay is an authorial genius.

You do realize JK Rowling said Dumbledore was gay back in 2007 (the year Deathly Hallows came out) when she was asked about Dumbledore and Grindelwald's relationship in that book? It's not really important to the overall story, but it's just adding more context to a relationship, for a book that just came out. Honestly it fits pretty well to their relationship. Also, Snape's arc was pretty clearly planned from the first book, I have no idea what you are talking about. Even in book 1 we're led to think Snape is evil and tries to kill Harry, but we learn that although he is an abusive teacher, he doesn't want Harry dead. He tries to save Harry and does save Harry many times in the series. And we see Dumbledore telling Harry why Snape hated James in the FIRST book, albeit an incomplete story. We know since Philosopher's Stone that Snape is a horrible teacher but also someone who tries his best to keep Harry alive. And it's hinted continually throughout the series that he does this for some reason only Dumbledore knows. Countless times people suspect Snape, but Dumbledore vouches for him but doesnt tell exactly why. We are hinted that there is some secret reason Snape stopped being a Death Eater, and that reason is revealed in Deathly Hallows, and it makes sense. For example, he was especially abusive towards Neville because he was the other candidate for the Chosen One, and if Voldemort decided to murdet Neville then Lily would be still alive. He hates Harry because he was James's son but saves him because he was Lily's son. Hell, the first question he asks Harry in Philosopher's Stone is: “Potter! What would I get if I added powdered root of asphodel to an infusion of wormwood?” According to Victorian Flower Language, asphodel is a type of lily meaning ‘My regrets follow you to the grave’ and wormwood means ‘absence’ and also typically symbolised bitter sorrow. If you combined that, it meant ‘I bitterly regret Lily’s death’. To an author who is super obsessed about forsahdowing things with names and has a big plot twist in practically every book in the series, I think this is not a stretch. Your knowledge about the series seems to be really lacking despite apparently reading them "7 or 8 times".

@@musichere3287 "Um ackshually she said Dumbledore was gay around the writing of the very last book so clearly that was always intended" ??? Time Of Dumbledore's Creation -> (Point decision could have been made, this is where you reference it in a book if it was intended) -> Deathly Hallows (First reference for choice, latest feasible moment in the story timeline to possibly reference any new fact about a character) Make a basic graph in your head dude, nothing about the citation here suggests it wasn't decided later on, as the books had already existed with the character having no implication of a homosexual relationship for over an entire decade prior, that's just wishful thinking on your part; the writer altering her stance IRL to fit new social norms and retconning her work for merit badge points makes more sense than "Sets it all up Chekhov Rowling" *not setting it up* The flower language could be intentional, but JK also literally named an Asian Cho Chang, so linguistics are probably not an intense area of interest for her; all facts on Earth naturally correlate at some point, so you can spin anything as symbolic language for anything else with enough bullshit, such as "This line Snape gave Harry was him saying 'I'm sad your mom died' apropos of nothing in the scene to provoke that action". You're attributing legendary foresight to her when convenient to you and then discarding the implications of that thought process once it becomes convenient to you as well Honestly I wouldn't have even called you out, like whatever, it's fandom cope, but holy FUCK were you smug about this

@@Wolf_ManJack I never said it was always intended (although very well could be), thanks for putting words in my mouth, that's how proper argumentation works 👍 I'm pretty certain the original commenter thought that JK Rowling decided Dumbledore was gay in 2017 or something when she tweeted about it. This is a very common misconception. We at least know that she was thinking about it in 2007 when Deathly Hallows came out, so I wanted to ask if he knows that this is not a new thing at all. An important point is that JK said this when she got *asked* about Dumbledore and Grindelwald's relationship in that book. That is different than personally announcing it to the entire world. She's been asked hundreds of questions in interviews. That was one of them. Usually, people answer questions when they are asked, and JK seems to enjoy it. Your argument was that she did it to "fit new social forms". In that case, what changed socially between the start of 2007 (when JK was still writing Deathly Hallows) and the October of 2007 (when she made that statement)? Obviously, you believe something did, since it wasn't in the book. Considering Dumbledore's close relationships with other people have basically never been a thing before Deathly Hallows, that's the only book where it would have made *any* sense to give us that info. Deathly Hallows is the first time Dumbledore's relationship life (specifically with Grindelwald) have been in close examination in the series. So, what changed throughout 2007 in "social norms" that it wasn't in the book but was given as extra info a few months later? My take is that Dumbledore being gay was not necessary for Harry or the readers to know, which is why it wasn't in the books. And like I said, DH is the only book where it would have made any sense to even add that info. His sexual preference would not have added anything meaningful to Harry's arc. The most important thing was Harry questioning Dumbledore, which Grindelwald and Dumbledore's relationship did regardless of whether it was romantic or not. I think it's very reasonable to say JK Rowling has had a lot of extra information about characters in her head and drawings, stuff that never made it into the books because it wasn't relevant. That's how all writers operate. I believe Dumbledore being gay is just one of those countless other tidbits. And it fits pretty well to his character, unlike some other retcons she's done. But even if it wasn't, who really cares? Thought from the start? Cool. Added to "fit social norms"? Cool. Thought only for the last book? Cool. Nothing changes about the books either way. It's just a tidbit. As for the Snape's arc, the Lily flower thing is just one of many things I mentioned. You can discard it if you want for some reason. As I said, I think it's quite obvious Snape's arc was mostly planned from the start just by reading the books. Even Alan Rickman himself confirmed it. In 2011, Rickman said in an interview with Los Angeles times that he knew Snape was a "double agent... and a very good one at that" from the start, despite the fact that Rowling had only written three of the books at the time "Sorcerer's Stone" was released. So, off-page confirmed, on-page quite clearly the case. Also, linguistics play a *HUGE* part in JK Rowling's naming. So you couldn't be more wrong about that. Just to give a few examples: -Dolores Umbridge: Dolores comes from the latin word "dolor", meaning "pain". And Umbridge is from the word "umbrage", meaning "annoyance". -Remus Lupin: "Remus" was a mythical founder of Rome who was raised by a wolf, and "lupus" is the latin word for "wolf" -Voldemort: The phrase "vol de mort" can mean either "flight of death" or "theft of death" in French -Sectumsempra: This curse is a combination of two words. Sectum is the passive participle of the Latin verb "seco," which means "severed." Sempra is derived from the Latin word "semper," which means "continuously." Quite literally, it is used to continuously slash at a victim. Not to mention the massive amount of alliteration used in HP names (Severus Snape, Dedalus Diggle, Godric Gryffindor etc). Of course you have your more common names like Harry Potter and Cho Chang too.

The one that gets me most is in deathly hallows when they try running from the snatchers instead of just apparating away. The worst part about it is that they just apparated like literally 10 seconds before

@alosim1541 To be fair, they were separated and Ron couldn’t apparate safely. Even if he could, being attacked by snatchers would make it hard to concentrate on where they wanted to escape. Something like the luck potion is significantly more damaging to worldbuilding.

@@alosim1541 That's only in the movie though.

Yeah and the explanation for "Why is this the only time this magic is used?" Is usually something like "It has extremely specific restrictions preventing any other application, because magic", since HP's magic system is hilariously soft for how heavily it's intertwined with the plot and world building. Similarly, every convenience can be explained as "Dumbledore orchestrated it as part of his decades spanning grand keikaku"

@@AydenMartinez-iv3jt what are you talking about? They literally just apparated from the lovegoods’ house and he was fine

I think your chronology is a bit off. People pointed out that the kind of indoor plumbing seen in Chamber of Secrets did not exist when Hogwarts was built, so JKR retconned that when the plumbing was added, a descendant of Slytherin, Corvin Gaunt I believe, hid the old entrance to the Chamber in the new bathroom that was added. People then asked JKR what wizards did before indoor plumbing, and she came up with the "vanishing it" explanation. Though, since the vanishing spell requires a wand, she does not explain how wizarding children learned to get rid of poop before they turned 11 and received a wand. I guess wizard parents had to deal with soiled nappies for a lot longer than muggle parents do.

Before plumbing yes.

​@@11alpha48 That's so dumb.

Only because that's how EFAP 66 starts lol

@@11alpha48 Geez, and all because Wizards don't want to dig into the ground. No wonder muggles rule civilization while the Wizards hide in their own dimension.

Why are you arguing with children and teenagers

I think they are better at different things and that’s fine. This is like comparing orange juice to root beer

Weird flex arguing with children...

The "which one's better, HP or LOTR?" Is the same as "wHoS sTrOnGger GoKku or SsUpErman?"

@@nmr7203 If we're being generous, he was probably a child and/or teenager when he was arguing about it.

Should make it Star Trek : The Temple of Doom

@@daskampffredchen9242 Star Trek: The Next Babylon Stargate.

Harry Potter makes more sense as a hallucination to cope for the constant child abuse he suffers from in regular life.

The whole Ministry of Magic system and the other foreign schools always confused me in how that works out. Is the Ministry of Magic just England's specific Magical government? or is it representative of the global magical community? if it's global, why don't the other schools and wizards and shit not come to England when their government falls to a literal dark lord?

@@bethcail976 Why didn't all countries come to Germany when Hitler rose to power?

@NoxideActive I agree with Lord Commander Dunn in that I like Harry Potter but it is a very flawed series. I do think Sorcerer Stone is the best written book from a story standpoint but the tisms ti has with its magic, notably time travel, and the government structures leave a lot to be desired in logistics. That's why as bad as the Fantastic Beast movies were I actually appreciated the first movie trying to explain the world of and the government there. All in all, I don't fault folks for liking the series because I do think it has some decent characters. But like Naruto, it has some serious problems that upon closer inspection makes you question the verisimilitude of the premise.

At the end of the day it IS a book series for kids.

that actually happens?

@@spartan7375 It does. Freys mother in a flashback to explain how she is both the daughter of one of the most important people from the fantasy land and also how she got to Earth.

I think I vaguely remember that. Not sure how she didn't grow up with a concave skull.

I consider that a gross oversimplification, both for HP and anime. The Harry Potter series' main issue is, and always was, the genre-shift it went through. It started out as a whimsical, magical kids' wonderland, with maybe some darker undertones, where concern over stuff like house elf slaves, the wizarding society treating normals as easily manipulated cattle, and cartoonishly evil and absive adoptive families could be hand-waved away with "It's for children, therefore it's exaggerated to make it more funny/weird/memorable". However, when that childishly innocent and whimsical premise morphs into a young adult series, all of those "quirky" elements come back to bite the story in the ass. The time-turner is fine as an amusing plot-device in a children's book, but it becomes a gaping plot-hole in a young adult one. House elves are a "fanciful" in the former, downright distasteful in the latter. The logistics of the Wizarding World doesn't matter when you're a kid preoccupied with the chocolate frogs, the weird candy, and the funny ghosts in a magical castle full of living paintings, but when you look at it with adult eyes, it becomes a nonsensical dystopia. However, there's no avoiding any of this, short of rewriting the whole series from the ground up, which is not going to happen. As cringe as it sounds, this duality is part of what makes the Harry Potter series a work of art you can analyze and reflect upon, instead of just a corporate product you are meant to consume.

@@Horvath_Gabor I’ve literally never seen anyone use the “it’s for kids” line of argumentation to explain why the faults you mention exist. Not that it’s not a horrible excuse in EVERY conceivable situation. I think you are missing my point. I wasn’t prescribing the problems, I was explaining why the problems don’t matter to most people. It’s easy to give a pass to the faults with the world building when the story is focused on the characters and you’ve already been onboarded when the stakes where much lower. Think about Endgame. As bad as it gets there’s still characters people care about and resolutions that are satisfying. That’s all you need. I bring up anime because this kind of stuff is much of the reason why the efap crew doesn’t enjoy anime. Anime usually put the characters and thematic resolutions before the plot, despite drawing you in with world building. Some people think it’s a problem, but I just think it’s a different way of telling a story

@@Agent_Cobalt I have just two things to note: "it's for kids" is not an excuse, it's a matter of fact. The first two/three books were written for young children in mind. Just like how nobody really cares about the metaphysics of Alice in Wonderland, the early Harry Potter books get much more of a free pass on weird and wacky world-building elements that only exists to capture children's imagination. It's the same as how you don't question the existence of a friendly pink dragon, or a shy monster under the bed, or Santa Claus, in a picture book aimed at kids. However, if the genre changes, which happened with the HP series, and the setting starts insisting on being taken seriously (as is seen with the whole "Wizarding World" IP), then it automatically loses the free pass it received as a kids' book. As for the anime part, again, it's gross generalization. Anime is not a genre, it's a medium, with its own genres and conventions and whatnot. While what you describe does exist, it's more of a thing in Japanese/East Asian storytelling in general, and *some* anime series would inevitably end up with it. Others don't. That's why I objected on the blanket statement.

@@Horvath_Gabor Im saying whether or not “it’s for kids” doesn’t matter and shouldn’t be uttered. It’s only ever uttered as an excuse for poor quality. Make something for kids that’s good and you make a “family movie” that every age group can enjoy. I don’t think I agree that the genre changed. The world view expanded as our characters grew up. The focus on fantastical elements to capture the imagination is tonally consistent with the age of our main characters, and as they grow up the stakes rise. It’s not about filling out all the world politics that get referenced. It’s about providing challenges to your cast so they can be themselves in increasingly complicated situations “Anime is not a genre, it’s a medium” 1. Tell that to efap and 2. Preaching to the choir But yes you are correct it is an East Asian storytelling thing. I brought up anime because this kind of stuff SEEMS to be the main reason efap doesn’t like anime (although I’m sure they’d change their mind if they just watched more). Harry Potter is very similar to many popular battle shonens. Down to the fantastical school run by ex *whatever the job is, who where the old guard against the big bad back in the day, but now the big bad is back (like 30-50% through the story) and so the new generation has to step into the shoes and they won’t reach adulthood until the series is over because brand recognition. Also the protagonist probably has some op asspull abilities that only they can do. Harry Potter is anime. Fight me

Like all of my prior content and virtually every EFAP appearance I had back in the day, I'm not proud of it. Even after a long time away from the podcast, I was still locked in the mindset of trying to entertain people. That would have been fine on its own, but I picked up early on in my KZfaq career that people liked me when I was being needlessly rude, antagonistic, abrasive, and all-around mean, which leads to innumerable moments across early EFAP (and nearly all my old videos) where I was just deeply vile and disrespectful. That unfortunately was still true of my appearance on EFAP #100. There was a right way to express my displeasure at Rob's video and a wrong way, and I'm ashamed to say I chose the wrong way, and I'm glad to see that the extremely mean things I said didn't break him down and he continues to do what he enjoys.

You’ve grown up Wolf. It takes a lot to look back on your prior work and actions and admit when you’re wrong. I’m proud of you buddy.

​@@EFAPHighlightsWhile you can say there are times you were needlessly mean, I think there were also alot of times where it was justified and needed to be mean. Not everyone you insulted was a good person and some people need harsh criticism alongside insults if they are being b*tchy about it. I am hoping you find the right balance to that and your life and have a good one.

@@EFAPHighlights You've really grown up.

​@@EFAPHighlightsThat is a very mature reflection, and I respect that a lot. Especially you acknowledging that the ego can loose sight of right & wrong, and lean into certain actions or behaviors, simply because such things are encouraged.

It also comes with the fact there's multiple versions of you. When Hermione and Harry return they see another version of themselves a day earlier about to go on the journey they just finished. This means there are hundreds, maybe thousands of Hermiones all over the castle. Is there any explanation as to how that's fixed in the movie? Cuz I don't remember any, and I've seen that movie a bunch of times.

@@RhysCallinan-bv1wi unlikely. Doubt she takes 1000 classes a day. There's probably 2 - 3 versions of her running around during the day. She's not cloning herself. The clones disappear once they use the time turner to restart the loop.

I often think deeply about it, and it fares really well. Since time turners are heavily regulated by the ministry, and you really can't use them to "change" time (Causal loop), using them for taking extra classes is actually a great use for them. They aren't anywhere near as overpowered as you may think. Also, you don't seem to be aware that the time turners were all destroyed in the Department of Mysteries battle in Order of the Phoenix. Besides the fact that they aren't as OP as you think, and are heavily regulated, they also got destroyed which is why they don't come up again.

It would be like going to that lair in Inception where people can come sleep for 4 hours a day and live 40 hours in the dream, use that for classes and training! 40 hours where I and teammates can practice and die without consequence, that's really powerful. 80 hours of training in a day or two. @@jbofficial32

@@Wyzai Still even if it's 3 versions (though it could be as many as twenty depending on just how many classes she has, not counting any she made for other instances) it'd still be a problem. No one questions as to why they haven't met, or why there's no reports of her being in multiple classes or places. Or even the fact that one of them might've gained sentience and tried to change her life, or try to murder the others as to gain dominance. If they explained that the clones disappeared after a while it's make sense, but they don't. It means that multiple Hermiones are getting into the Gryffindor house sleeping area, and no one noticed or catches them together.

I want it! Christmas time!!! Maybe begin the day after Halloween & finish on Christmas.

Oh thank you for doing it before I did. It's pretty entertaining seeing them fumbling over basic stuff in this series. It's not a good series, I'd say it's an ok book series and eh movie series, but I'd expect a pannel to refrain from making statements over movies they have seen a decade ago and books they've never read. All it ends up accomplishing is some shallow remarks from the ones who haven't seen/seen a long time ago while the most talkative people also didn't seem to have a strong grasp on the story. Not the best clip to cut and upload lol

I would add that, to me, the reason for the overcomplicated scheme in GOF is Voldemort wanting Harry's death to look like an accident in order not to cast suspicion on his comeback to the wizarding world, the tournament being the perfect excuse. Of course, that falls apart at the end of Order of the Phoenix when he comes personally to the ministry out of ego and hubris, ultimately revealing himself. In a way, it shows how flawed and unable to control himself he is, which is also how he made the prophecy real in the first place, but I still find it a bit of a barebones excuse. The thing is most of the series has plot holes and I still am able to enjoy it regardless, but in this case I find this defense kind of reasonable. In reality, she wrote most of it as she went along, only having planned a basic outline of where she wanted the characters to end at

There isn't any significant difference between the four dragons. This isn't even criticism that needs to be addressed. In addition to what you said about the egg clue, you CAN still do something even if you don't know the task, if you know spells. You have a few minutes of time between knowing the task and having to perform it. Also, Avada Kedavra is one of the hardest spells to perform, saying the word is not enough. As Barty Crouch jr says: “Avada Kedavra is a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it - you could all get your wands out now and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I’d get so much as a nosebleed" Personally, I believe Harry Potter is a good, well-written book series with flaws. Rowling is a good storyteller and excellent at writing characters. Her plot writing and world-building could be better though

It would’ve helped if the first port key introduced wasn’t an old boot. If the item itself had to be very significant and ‘magical’ then making the Goblet into one would line up very well…

@@musichere3287 Didnt one of the participants just cast a spell that gave her an Air Bubble?

So Harry Potter is very unhealthy for your media diet?

"Harry Potter and the House Ni-"

And names characters Paddy and Cho Chang lol

@@sayLeotardbutsayitChinese Who is Paddy, and what's wrong with Cho Chang?

What's wrong with the m-word? I think it's a great slur for people that aren't fully magical blood. And why would she use "real world discriminatory words"? This is a fictional story, of course the magical people would have some own words, they aren't going to call muggle-borns the n-word lmao

@@musichere3287Cho and Chang are Korean surnames. They cast a Chinese actress.

Yeah, there's no comparison.

Not really as they are the same genre and Harry Potter has stood the test of time rather well. The problem is unlike other fantasy works like say Game of Thrones or the Stormlight Archives, Harry Potter has no thought put into it.

Are you only talking about the movies? Because most of the story makes sense in the books, although they do have some plotholes too

@@musichere3287 Most of the plotholes came from magical worldbuilding.

It does make sense why it's an unforgivable spell though. The only use case for the spell is to kill. That Molly spell has always been interesting though, no idea what it was

holy shit she really went "imma hit you with the microwave beam"

How's that weird? They're growing up and the dangers are getting more serious. The transition between 2 and 3 isn't very smooth, same for 4 and 5, but it's not aggravating or anything. The books have the same maturing but it's more gradual. 1 and 2 are very whimsical, 3 and 4 make that transition from their childhood to their adolescence and 5 to 7 have, inevitably, a more serious tone.

...were you expecting bright vibrant colors and cheery music when people are being hunted and others are killed or tortured?

I mean, chamber of secrets is pretty dark when you think about it.

yeah, the last movies especially they almost look black and white to me lol

@@willfanofmanyii3751 color grading isnt what makes a movie serious, the soundtrack yes, alongside with the tone, writing and direction

@countD8852 Yeah; I noticed that as well. You could also make the argument that the horcruxes were a bit of a retcon to make Voldemort seem less powerful but at least Rowling was smart to use existing items, like the journal from Chamber of secrets. For me, the lack of consistent rules with the magic was what annoyed me. I get Harry Potter is soft magic(I'm not against the concept but hard and soft magic isn't always binary, you can have shades in between.) but something like the forbidden curses like what's stopping it from being used by normal mages as opposed to morality. I forget if the books ever fleshed out the forbidden curses but I always thought it would have been better to give them some unpredictable factor or lack of control. They are powerful but they can get out of control and kill you and others. Hence, you got a nice tradeoff with the normal spells being safe and consistent but may lack offensive power whereas vice versa is the case with dark magic.

I always found it weird that "I wouldn't get anything worse than a nose bleed" part. Wasnt the killing curse supposed to do no harm to the body? You just died. No broken bones, no organ failure, no physical damage at all. Or am I remembering it wrong?

@@Avarn388 The most I remember was how the end of book 5 was the first time Harry used one of the unforgivable curses. He tried torturing Bellatrix, but she laughed it off after a few seconds and said, "You need to mean it! You need to want to cause pain!" or some such thing. Then at the end of book 7 when the good trio meet the bad trio in the room of requirement, Crabbe (or Goyle) summon living fire and immediately lose control over it, causing one of them to die and destroying the Horcrux that was in there. That was described as incredibly dark magic too, but that was about it, iirc.

@@cachalote8311 That was kind of weird, because everyone who was on the receiving end of that curse was described as looking fine. Even in the beginning of book 4, The Riddle family were described as being in perfect health except for the fact that they were dead by a coroner. I guess the nosebleed comment could work if you take things like failed spell effects into account. Throughout the series, in the books and in the movies, there were explosions and things not transforming correctly, and people leaving bits of themselves behind when they failed to teleport. Maybe a failed killing curse would main the target? It would have been interesting to see someone try and fail to use it.

@@cachalote8311 It's kinda weird, but I don't know what other way there would be to demonstrate the fact that you need ability to perform the spell. I think the nose bleed works as an example of a failed Avada Kedavra casting

Well, except leaving Harry alive and going to a shoddy surgeon to get a face lift.

I don't find anything weird about that. It's supposed to be a competition where you're on your own, without knowing what the 2nd task even is before you figure out the clue. I think it's implied Harry would die if he didn't compete, or something along those lines.

​@@musichere3287it's been forever since i watched the movie, but wasn't his name put into the chalice by someone?

They just don't know basic stuff.

She was really smart, even though most likely autistic.

Spells are invented. Depending on the complexity of the action it can be very easy or incredibly difficult. There's about fiffty different spells to make someone hover in the air because it's so simple school kids can make them

I think some of it was explained within the games. They have cards that you can collect with lore, describing how some of spells were created or discovered, by wizards that were researchers/alchemists and that kind of stuff. Even Merlin is part of the lore. Also, all of it written by Rowling herself.

Or decided to wait until the kid was old enough to go to school and not kill him while he was a small boy without magic.

@@RhysCallinan-bv1wi It's so funny seeing two guys talk about a series they know nothing about lol. What you are questioning is explained in the books

@@musichere3287 If it's not explained in the movies it doesn't matter.

@@musichere3287 It's really not explained in the books why Voldemort didn't just shoot baby Harry in the face lol

Fucin English laws, amirite

I'm Gryffindor but I'm no furry. That's just because I'm basic bitch when having what side I'm on. The "oh lawful good, how pathetic" kinda guy.

Ravenclaw on the outside, GSD on the inside lol.

They really should have used the other houses a bit more. Only saw Griffindor and a bit of Slytherin

Whats true about a guess

In the books it is explained the kids aren't in any danger. Ron even makes fun of Harry for trying to save Fluer's sister because it cost him first place

It is Alan Rickman after all.

That's because it's made for kids. Kids don't think about those types of plotholes and worldbuilding inconstistencies when they're consuming a story. That's also the reason why I'm so baffled that they're are grown adults, sometimes in their 40s, that still love Harry Potter.

One of the earliest uses of magic by a student we are shown is Ron using a levitation spell to drop a club on a troll's head with sufficient force to knock the 10-foot tall creature unconscious. Imagine if Ron had missed and dropped the club on Harry or Hermione. Or imagine using the levitation spell to levitate someone off the Astronomy Tower and drop them. I think the conventional, though I am not sure if it is canonical, answer is that it is not the effect of the Unforgivables that make them that, but the intent. You have to want to control or torture or murder. Harry fails when he casts the Cruciatus at Bellatrix LeStrange in Order of the Phoenix for this reason, though I believe he does manage to use it against one of the Carrow twins in Deathly Hallows.

​@@11alpha48The other spells provided at least have some practical use outside of killing. The same way a saw does. However a killing cure literally only has one purpose.

@@11alpha48 Ok I like the intent part but then I'm wondering: what are the intents when you shoot a fireball at someone?

​@@TheHardys01 How's a single use spell an issue? It was designed for it.

@@TheHardys01 That's a good point, though one might also argue that there could be other practical uses for the Unforgivables as well. For example, I recall a fanfic wherein a character claimed the 3 curses all were originally healer's spells which had been corrupted - the Imperius kept a patient compliant or from harming himself, the Cruciatus was originally a type of defibrillator whose effect was ramped up, the Killing Curse was a form of painless euthanasia. Not sure if I agree, but that's an example of an author trying to come up with a creative take on Rowling's magical system. There are other spells which arguably have no practical use outside of causing harm, like an entrail-expelling curse or an organ-rotting curse, but I am not sure if those are canon. Another aspect I'd mention is that it's not just the specific intent - to control or torture or murder - but the motivation - to revel in that control or pain and death. I think I recall another fanfic wherein a character said it's not the effect on the victim that makes them unforgivable, but the effect on the caster, as it darkens his or her soul.

Ya I always wondered how Ravenclaw doesn't win every house cup if they give points for correct answers. I guess Hermione got put in Gryffindor just for that lol

yeah the tournament is known to be deadly

When did it say they would die?

​@@darthinvader5214Deadly to those around them?? Why wasn't Dumbledore the one to get the underwater bdsm treatment instead of Ron?

In the book its explicitly said they wouldnt have died as the "victims" wernt participants, but the contestants wernt told that, or at least harry wasnt, so he goes out of his way to help save the other 1 and loses time but gains the respect of one of the other contestants. Hermoine then says hes an idiot for thinking theyd let them die and not minmaxing

@@kirilsden6743 True, but Ron said that, not Hermione

Pretty sure I remember my friend's hugely Potterhead wife telling me that JK said it was coincidental. They're all pseudo-latin and "avada cadavera" is something like "speak death" or "make dead" or some ish like that. At least the cadaver part is close to sort of maybe correct

Thanks for telling us, mate.

@@spenser9908No problem.

Excellent character work (9/10), good storytelling (8/10), decent plot writing (6.5/10) and okay world-building (5/10). Overall 7/10 series (good)

@@jbofficial32 Lmao, worldbuilding is a 1,plot 2 to 3 and characters are 3 to 4 AT BEST, although they're considerably ruined by dumb writing in the final one.

@@ramert32 Hogwarts is one of the greatest, most magical places (pun intended) ever created in literature. While there are things that don't quite make sense in the wizarding world, JK Rowling managed to create a really fun and interesting world. She has the ability to create a compelling plot, and her plot writing is *incredible* when it comes to mystery, but has to rely on plot conveniences quite often to move the plot forward. There are also some plotholes. Those drag her otherwise good plotwriting skills down. 2-3 for plot is way, way too low imo. "3-4 for characters" is just insulting. She manages to create really great characters where almost every important character has a clear personality with flaws and strengths. And they are mostly very consistent. You have great character arcs, characters that are good but don't really change. You have morally grey characters, pure evil, purely good (still with flaws). JK Rowling's ability to write character interactions and conversations is also great. They feel so natural. You have to be joking with the 3-4 rating (it's not funny though).

@@jbofficial32 the world is fun at first glance but falls apart entirely if you think about it. Also the last books majorly fucks with most of the characters with many being inconsistent morons or nothing burgers before, also her plot writing is filled with contrivances aplenty only offering escapism and doesn't make much sense at how convenient some of the events are

@@jbofficial32 And then you have to remember that there were antagonists and they'd also figure into character rating, which rules out anything above a 7/10. She basically turned an entire house and a significant part of the wizarding community into evil NPCs that spawn in as needed and mostly do generic evil things as the plot demands it, with no nuance whatsoever. Meanwhile, the good characters are just the goodest for the most part and never do something seriously messed up in a war against people that tortured and humiliated them, dragging the whole thing down to roughly 5/10. For every 'great' character arc, you have a character line or simply no character at all on the other side and you don't get much of good guys switching over, with the exception of Luna's dad. There was so much wasted potential in regards to that alone.

It's quiet literally blood related. How media illiterate can you be too say the terms "mudblood and pure blood" and not realize it's meant to be racism. Voldemort several times talks about genociding non-magic users. There are several moments where muggles are referred too as lesser and mudblood is obviously based on referring to people as "impure" or mixed race. It's incredibly blatant

Yeah coz the scenes in the Shire aren’t kiddish at all 😂

Resident Evil gets a pass because it's a videogame franchise first and foremost

@@TheBatman39 The weird thing about the RE movies though is they’re all directed by the same guy AND the plots are all incompatible anyway! Then you take the tv movie and show…it’s a mess

Dude.. That's a disappointing take to get from this video. Don't let them cut you off from media. It's not Rings of Power ffs. Go watch Harry Potter. Maybe next holiday season. If it's shlt, then it's shlt. At least your thoughts will be your own.

A few of them are okay (at least they were when I was a child) but the dragon one is a definite skip. If you're like me and a bad ending ruins the whole series, though, don't waste your time

No, I genuinely had no interest in the books or movies. I only saw the two movies because I was with friends. @@TheHardys01

Wizarding Law prohibits underage wizards from using magic outside school in the presence of muggles. Harry nearly got expelled after saving Dudley and got dragged into the Ministry over it.

Apparently it's illegal to use magic on people, muggles, outside of Hogwarts. A safety measure to prevent people from finding out about magic. Not the best answer, considering multiple muggles aside from Harry's Aunts family, but at least we know they have some rules, if not a lot.

@@RhysCallinan-bv1wi In Harry's case, his home life is so bad that he wouldn't care about the rules. He doesn't exactly follow school procedure at school, so it's not like the rules are sacred to him. For that matter, I don't see why Harry would return to his abusive family ever if he's got friends. "Hey Ron, can I stay at your house in the summer? Neville? Hagrid? I'll even scoop up Unicorn poop for you."

@@dragonknightleader1 Well breaking the rules means expulsion, at least in the "out of school magic use" case, and possibly losing his magic gear. Also I don't think anyone could look after him. Hagrid can't because it's also illegal for an old man like him to look after a kid who isn't his, plus he's a teacher so it might be against school rules. The Weaselys can't because they're a big family with a small house. If anything it's the schools fault for letting the abuse go on. They could've threatened the family into being better and nicer. Especially after the stuff he did for them after the first movie. it's why I don't like Dumbledore. He could've easily made things so much easier for Harry and his students.

Yeah her videos are great 😊

Snape was a slitherin so not all

The books explains it as much as needed, really. The houses aren't a core part of the story, it's mostly setting, and their importance is overblown by both fans and critics of the series. There's also no inherent morality to it, books or movies. People in the house just live in a period where a pretty cohesive movement was birthed and proliferated within Slytherin, giving them a bad reputation. That doesn't mean all of them are inherently bad, most are simply a product of their upbringing, with your occasional characters that break from that popping up (say Regulus, Slughorn or Andromeda). Saying "whoever gets in Slytherin is instantly a bad person" is like saying, in the 40s, "whoever is germanic is a bad person", when the issue was a movement in a specific period of time that swept the nation and isn't representative of them in all of their prior or future history afterwards. Also, you can totally picture that same movement popping up in Ravenclaw.

@@VMF-rj8qo as much as you might be right im talking about movies here. And im really tired of people telling me to resort to 3rd party media when it comes to explaining something that was not explained well in the movie. Just like for example Ahsoka TV series where things were really badly explained and people juts kept telling me to watch 4 seasons of Rebels and 6 seasons of Clone wars just so I can understand why are the things happening. Yeah like im gonna go and spend 60 hours on some tv shows im not interested in just so i can understand the poor writing of the main TV show (Ahsoka) So you see now after watching the badly adapted Harry Potter movies its my problem that the movie makers didnt explain things well enough? Guess I have to go now and spend extra money on some books I cant be asked to read.

​@@Eliminate.I've watched all of clone wars and rebels and Ashoka still doesn't make sense. It might make you very slightly less confused. The show is still bad lmao

@@MurkMovies Yeah and that's literally my point with this. I've actually seen most of Rebels and Clone wars too. These shills who keep telling others that Ahsoka will make sense if you watch clone wars or rebels are delusional and in complete denial. They say this argument because they know most people haven't seen these shows therefore they cant be wrong.

Things do change. The Ministry pretty much crumbles completely by the end of the final book. The one Harry works for in the epilogue is a new Minstry built from the ground up

Dumbledor only wanted for Harry to be a sacrificial lamb in the beginning, but then he grew to care for him, thus him giving Harry the Resurrection Stone

Maybe there is an assessment every year, but most stay in their own house because of friends and stuff. It would suck if one year I had a load of cool people as friends and next they were my enemies. It probably helps as well in preventing turncoats and disloyalty. Lots of people would still care about their old groups.

that movie was directed by a bloke who had never heard of the ip he thought it was low budgets, famously didnt like the books and what not, worst directing choice and was let go after that movie

@@jackhamey659 Very true! And those films had lots of issues with their directors. But my main source for this series is ultimately the books, and these were simply the biggest issues that I found going forward into the series.

Shame that the fic is propaganda and has awful pacing.

Methods of Rationality is self-absorbed ass bro

@@FlaggedStarHow so?

@@eskaflorence5659 There's nothing hidden about this. You merely need to look at the chapter titles to see both of my points.

If you don't care about the characters you might like it, but it feels like it was written by a smartass who hates the original, plus Harry in this is insufferable.

I agree. The 3 movies hold up more and more every time I rewatch, where as the other 4 are just messy

I mainly agree. The second one is a good guilty pleasure and just hilarious at times. Goblet of Fire is downright dumb. And Half-Blood Prince could have been really good if they had someone with more style do the film, for a film that should be very dark and dramatic some of those scene should have had been stylistically done.

Half-Blood Prince is the worst. And why is Chamber of Secrets bad?

@@mateuszmarciniak2828 a snake as long as a bus traverses through the school via pipes, petrification is very inconsistent, Dobby looks like shit, Aragog trying to kill them just sort of happens and Lockheart being hired is retarded. Half-Blood Prince is far from the worst, it's main issue is that it's not really all that engaging.

JK is a terrible writer. You seen Crimes of Grindelwald?

@@reginaldcampos5762 I don't know what that is. Why shouldn't she be a consultant for something that she created, even if she did a poor job (to say the least) the first time? It's her IP, she should have a say on any project relating to it for as long as she's in charge of it, even if for asthetics and basic character relationships.

The third movie isn't that faithful. The first two are.

@VMF-rj8qo nah its pretty damn close. I just finished the book recently and they changed a couple things but not much.

Im probably in the minority here but i actually preferred the 3rd movie to the book. I felt the book looses the main narrative many times throughout, and focuses far too much on quidditch. Whereas the movie being that it is automatically going to be shorter, focuses on the main story and gets the point across very well.

@@AlexSouster 100% agree. I also appreciated that they took out all the silly drama between the trio. Ron and Harry were being such assholes to Hermoine and Hagrid and never got any comeuppance.

Well, he lives in Britain, not America. Gun laws in the UK are fucking horrible. Worse than my own, I don't know. But it just sucks the best you get is double barrels for professional hunters, farmers and the odd rich dude. It's why the meme of them is "oi you got a loicense for that knife"? exists.

@@RhysCallinan-bv1wi THEYRE FUCKING WIZARDS. What the hell are the authorities gonna do against a bunch of those guys when they can teleport at will?

What part would he have gone for?

Also only students past a certain grade. So they should know after 6-7 years of leaning magic how to cast a simple water breathing spell

I could be wrong, but wasn't there a floo network in DA teacher's office? They tried using it to get to the Ministry in Phoenix.

@@v4facade It has been a long time, so I do not remember the details of the stories but the no teleportation thing has some exceptions. Such as the headmaster being able to freely bypass that. There is something about using floo powder and of course the vanishing cabinet. My point is bringing an unregistered port key onto Hogwarts would be like openly brandishing an ak. Not exactly subtle and likely to just get you caught before you can achieve your particular goal.