question about Harry Potter

[Don]

I'm not a fan of Harry Potter, but I've watch/heard enough of it to have some idea what's going on. But I've never figured out that why is it Harry Potter who has defeated guys that not even the entire wizard community put together can beat, is still getting a hard time just through magic school. Shouldn't you get a free pass at whatever institution they have for defeating someone no one else can beat? Is he like Megaman X where saving the world 8 times still gets you no respect?

I have been compiling a list of odd suspension of belief/logic in stories, and this one bothers me the most. There's always some guy who can move planets, twist reality, and do things no one has ever done, but they can't seem to even get recognized in some arachiac, powerless society that always relies on the said guy to bail them out in the face of danger. Yet inexplicably after saving the said organization, the hero is given very little gratitude despite having the power to destroy the said organization effortlessly if he wanted to.

[Zeus]

I've only watched the 4 movies, but Harry never just kicks ass and takes names. In the last movie he didn't even really win and he got tons of help. It's not like an 80s Arnold who's indestructible, he's got Hermine and Ron helping him, not to mention Sirius, Dumbledore, and lots of others looking out for him all the time.

[Don]

I know he's got help, but I mean, he's the guy who is responsible for defeating Valdemort, a guy the other wizards are too scared to even say his name. Even if he's just a figurehead, you'd think he gets more recognition than what he gets.

[Nev]

(semi-spoiler warning)

Read the books before you complain, Don. It's presented very believably. It's not any stupid Dragon Ball bullshit ("My power level is over FIVE HUNDRED MILLION BILLION") where you just compare a number to see who's stronger.

The first time Harry actually faces the real Voldemort (in the fourth book), instead of just some kind of shadow puppet or Dark creature, he almost gets slaughtered, and one of his fellow students *does* get slaughtered. He barely gets away - there's no "victory" there, he just doesn't get killed.

The next year, he starts a secret anti-Dark-wizard practice group with fellow students and improves his skills quite a bit, and still nearly gets killed at the end before a bunch of Aurors (kind of like the Special Forces of the wizarding world) and Dumbledore himself come and actually win the battle.

I won't spoil the sixth year "surprise", but trust me when I say the "good guys" get wrecked fairly regularly in Harry Potter. Way more often than in most anime I've seen, for sure, and with more permanent consequences. You don't have any idea what you're talking about on this one.

Also, for what it's worth, Rowling's mentioned that she's still deciding whether or not Harry himself will still be alive by the end of the last book.

[Don]

He slew a Basilisk with the help of a Phoenix and a borrowed sword. I assume this is supposed to be pretty extraordinary, or are you saying anyone with a Phoenix pet and a sword can take out a Basilisk no problem?

Valdemort might not be at his full power or whatever, but I don't see anyone else killing his not fully powered up self even though he's like public enemy #1. Being able to survive at all against Lord Valdemort should be pretty impressive seeing how the rest of the world is absolutely terrified of him.

Are you saying that he just happens to be in the right place at the right time, and that it's only a fluke and anyone else could've done it? I'd think not. One would assume if he's not around the events in Harry Potter would have gone very differently. What he does is extraordinary, but he gets no extraordinary recognition. He should be something of a living legend by now, and yet he still gets treated like a scrub trying to get out of magic school. That, to me, isn't right.

I'm not knocking on the combat system. It is probably one of the tighter ones where things actually make sense. But I don't understand why Harry's extraordinary accomplishments seem to go unrecognized. Slaying a Basilisk is only good for 50 points of extra credit when the rest of the school apparently have no idea how to deal with it? Does graduating from the said magic school require having saved the world multiple times?

[Nev]

I'm saying you should read the books before you bitch. As a matter of fact, let me repeat it: go read the books before you complain any more about it. Harry *is* a living legend in the books. He gets treated like it as well. That's one of the reasons he gets hated on.

I mean, this is why I sometimes get aggravated with you, Don. You complain SO MUCH about this stuff, and you haven't even read the books in this case. Go read them! Quit criticizing Rowling when you aren't even giving her the decency of actually taking a firsthand look at the material.

[Don]

If you say the book covers it correctly then I'll take your word for it. But then that also means it is correct say he is not a living legend according to the movies. So why is it okay that the movies never made me feel he was at all respected for all the extraordinary things he does? Are movies just allowed to be that much worse than books? I watched Lord of the Rings movie and there's nothing in there that'd make me think 'whoa this doesn't make any sense whatsoever'. Sure your movie is more limited in terms of narrative but why does it have to be vastly inferior?

Is the fact something is animated a free pass for an inferior story? I'm quite used to the 'it was different in the books/manga/whatever' argument and I have no doubt that it is correct in this context, but why does it have to be this way? Is it because we expect multimedia story to suck that's why no one is ever recognized for coming up with a good story?

[Nev]

Many fans are not all that happy with the movies. I haven't seen any since the second, I watched the first part of the third and found the pacing uneven, never finished it.

Hollywood has a way of corrupting source material in its quest to appeal to more people. I'd argue that making Harry seem more victimized and emphasizing that in the films, which I think they do, is a part of that.

"Emo" seems to be kind of in these days - I've had trouble with the Spider-Man movies because they focus so much on Peter Parker's troubled loneliness. In order to appeal to tortured teens, filmmakers will play up a "victimized" side of a protagonist's personality. In the books, it's more balanced - he's alternately either praised as a school and Wizarding world hero, or completely hated when he becomes involved in something that's either shady or can be corrupted by the media (Rita Skeeter, in the fourth book - dunno how much of that transferred over to the movie). It's a pretty convincing representation of celebrity and the jealousy that often surrounds it - I mean, very rarely is someone simply acclaimed as a hero even in real life, Don. Especially these days, you often spend more time trying to protect your reputation from jealous trash-talkers than you do actually doing the things you do, if you're a celebrity.

Hollywood is a big business. A critically acclaimed but financially failing movie is really not much better for your studio than a bomb. So you get a lot of "script doctors", and various other parties (think Bruckheimer) who put in mass-appeal elements to try to boost ticket sales. Sometimes it's done well (Pirates of the Caribbean 1, The Rock), sometimes it damages the source material (Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy). It's a fact of the way they do business, and I don't know what to tell you.

I also think you are misjudging people's tendency for hero worship. In the real world, it's more complex, and you often get treated like a scrub by many, many people, no matter what you've done. People get their own egoes in their eyes, and judging celebrity of any kind is more common than respect, for many people. The books most likely do a better job than the movies of depicting this. I still think you should go read them.

[Kupek]

Harry, like most teenagers, doesn't place much actual importance in doing well in school. He cares because he's scared of failing, but he's not passionate about school.

Harry, like most people, cares very much about not dying.

How plausible are the circumstances? I really don't care. It seems self-consistent in the world J. K. Rowling has created, and I'm willing to accept it on her terms.

[Nev]

I'm not knocking on the combat system. It is probably one of the tighter ones where things actually make sense. But I don't understand why Harry's extraordinary accomplishments seem to go unrecognized. Slaying a Basilisk is only good for 50 points of extra credit when the rest of the school apparently have no idea how to deal with it? Does graduating from the said magic school require having saved the world multiple times?

Does sticking a sword in a Basilisk mean Harry's learned all the magic he was supposed to learn in his Wizarding education? Being a wizard in the world of Harry Potter means you've mastered a number of commonly accepted adult magical skills, none of which are sticking a sword into a Basilisk.

If a college student prevented a murder on campus, would you give him/her a degree in electrical engineering?

Also, it's not like no one else had any idea how to deal with the Basilisk. The plot point - as you should know or remember - is that no one knew where the damn thing was, if they even believed in it at all. One presumes Dumbledore, and probably several other teachers (Flitwick, McGonagall, Snape if he felt like it) would easily have been up to dispatching it, or else calling in the Ministry (if Lucius Malfoy hadn't been partially behind it).

The Basilisk fight wasn't at all supposed to be "Harry Potter is the only one who can deal with this". It was an encounter driven by circumstance, not any kind of power levels. What you're describing reminds me a lot of a bad anime plot, in fact - anime's much worse about creating "one guy/girl who's the only one who can save the world." Harry is regarded that way because of a prophecy within the Wizarding world and a spell cast by his mother where she sacrificed her life, not because of actual events he's caused so far. I think there's significant evidence to believe that the prophecy is absolute bullshit - fortune-tellers haven't been portrayed as either infallible or even competent (Trelawney) throughout the entire series, and Rowling's comment that Harry might not make it through the series might have ramifications on it as well.

Read the damn books!

[Don]

Just because Harry was in the right place in the right time, that means it's not a big deal he's doing stuff that no one has ever pulled off (versus Valdemort in general)? If he has that kind of luck, he deserves to be recognized as such.

In your college analogy, it'd be like if you invented a perpetual motion machine, but you were unable to get a degree in engineering because some prof really hated your guts and won't let you pass. Maybe you shouldn't get a free pass at everything, but it seems downright silly that you'd nitpick someone for a minor thing when he has accomplished no one in your entire organization could do.

You say 'read the books' but I feel each work ought to be contained in itself. The movies should not make no sense whatsoever if you don't read the books. And if the books make no sense do you fill it up with the author's retcon? For example in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, it made no sense that the Imperial Fleet lost to the Rebels Fleet at the Battle of Endor. Later Timothy Zahn retconned and said that it was because the Emperor controlled the fleet via Jedi Battle Meditation, that was why the Imperial Fleet lost despite having an overwhelming advantage even without the Death Star. This does not change the fact that the Return of the Jedi had a fundamental inconsistency. It's great that they eventually recognize it and fix it so it make sense, but it seems all too easy to just fix any inconsistency with some 'ask the author' deal.

I'm reading another series I follow which has huge power level inconsistencies, and even though it's all addressed in an ask the author deal where the author specifically says like A will beat B, and C will beat D etc. Despite the fact that it is absolutely impossible to come to these conclusion given the written material, does the fact the author has said 'A>B' in an interview somewhere means everything now make sense all along? In Xenosaga 1, it is completely impossible to figure out what is the nature of Virgil's disease, or where Lost Jersualem is, based on just the ingame dialogues. Does the fact that both items are conveniently explained in Xenosaga's handy encyclopedia means now it makes sense? If I wrote something that isn't consistent, is it okay if I publish an addendum that has everything explained? I'd think it's the resonsibility of whoever's making this stuff to make sure everything makes sense the first time. Yes, I know no one is perfect, but it seems like no one even cares people can just arbitrarily make up stuff that makes no sense as long as they can retconned it later.

[Don]

Another example is when World of Warcraft released their new expansion, they had some lore as to why Draenai is a playable race. The fans quickly pointed out that the lore is an outright contradiction of what is stated in Warcraft 3 and earlier games. The lore is written by the same guy, who merely forgot what he said earlier. The contradiction is so obvious that there was no possible way to even argue anything, so the author said well it was one way before but now I say it's another way because he wasn't about to change the new lore he wrote up. Sure, he's the author and WoW makes a zillion dollars, but that doesn't mean the story is right.

Maybe this is why story in multimedia platforms is never taken seriously when you can outright contradict yourself if it means making some more money. We certainly recognize books for having a great author. I think we recognize even movies for having a good story too. But when's the last time any game is recognized for having a great story? And no I don't mean like having someone's review say this game's story is great. I know they give out awards for games like best graphics, or best designer, etc., but I have never heard of a best story writer award for a game.

[Flip]

alright, alright, i'll shed some light on this as i have read them all and seen the movies...

Harry is popular in the community not due to any choice of his at all. In the beginning Voldemort kills his mom and dad and tried to kill Harry while he was still an infant in the crib. Here is the important part, FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON, Voldemort's spell backfires and does not kill Harry, but only gives him that lightning scar and instead nearly kills Voldemort.

Thus, Harry is a hero and he really doesnt know why, no one does. Should he pass wizard school for some innate luck/ability? Er, no. Of course, while at school he does comtinue to fend off Volemort and other evil, but like Nev said, a lot of that has to do with friends and even more luck. The adults in the story obviously think all of this is miraculous, but they treat the kids like kids for their own good. They get punished for breaking school rules, but are praised behind their backs.

It makes sense, the kids in the books shouldnt be raised on pedastools for disobeying and merely getting lucky, should they? They are talented, the teachers and adults know this, but they have a lot to learn and are treated like the youth they are while also being secretly monitored, protected, and groomed.

[Zeus]

Don, in the first 3 films, he fought a shadow of Voldemort and barely got away. In the 4th film, he fought a resurrected Voldemort, a fellow student died, he had a ton of help, and he BARELY was able to run away from the trap set for him.

He's a God why?

[Kupek]

The Harry Potter movies are not the books. As the books progress, the stories and characters become more involved. By this point, the movies barely have the time to fit in all of the plot points, which means most character development (and hence, insight into why they do what they do) is lost. So if you find the reality presented by the movies internally inconsistent, then I'm not surprised.

[Nev]

Just because Harry was in the right place in the right time, that means it's not a big deal he's doing stuff that no one has ever pulled off (versus Valdemort in general)? If he has that kind of luck, he deserves to be recognized as such.

He *is* recognized as such. He *is* a hero within the Wizarding world. Ordinary wizards often stutter and lose their ability to communicate when meeting him for the first time. But his classmates go to school with him every day, and his teachers obviously will be teaching him, so while they may or may not have that kind of respect for him, teaching comes first. I find it to be a rather realistic depiction of educational systems, in fact.

In your college analogy, it'd be like if you invented a perpetual motion machine, but you were unable to get a degree in engineering because some prof really hated your guts and won't let you pass. Maybe you shouldn't get a free pass at everything, but it seems downright silly that you'd nitpick someone for a minor thing when he has accomplished no one in your entire organization could do.

Absolutely wrong. If Harry had invented a new spell or something, your analogy might be correct. I think the "prevent a murder" analogy is far better, since that wouldn't imply any engineering talent. As I mentioned, sticking a sword into a big snake under very circumstantial circumstances (so to speak) doesn't imply *any* magical talent, which would be the analogy to your description of engineering. Also, nothing *anyone* has done in the entire Harry Potter universe is akin to making a perpetual motion machine, at least so far - i.e., completely rewriting the laws of the way the universe is supposed to work. You need to be more careful with your analogies, in my opinion, and you completely ignored what I mentioned about a good number of the school's staff being able to easily competently handle a Basilisk - Harry just happened to be the one who was there to do it at the time.

You say 'read the books' but I feel each work ought to be contained in itself.

If you're talking about just taking each work on its own merit, that's fine. I simply wouldn't judge the movies based on the books. It's not a good idea, the movies have pacing problems, and have been Bruckheimered up a bit (so to speak, though he's not the director). See under my previous post on the realities of Hollywood. You may continue to keep ignoring that at your leisure, if you like, but Hollywood is highly unlikely to change on your account.

[Anarky]

[Zeus]

Many fans are not all that happy with the movies.

Since when are they? You can find tons of fans of the Lord of the Rings books not happy with the films, either. Book nerds will find any reason to bitch about the movie version of the story. They're different mediums, they can't be the exact same thing.....ever.

[SineSwiper]

Many fans are not all that happy with the movies.

Since when are they? You can find tons of fans of the Lord of the Rings books not happy with the films, either. Book nerds will find any reason to bitch about the movie version of the story. They're different mediums, they can't be the exact same thing.....ever.

I think the movies of both series have done a damn good job of trying to make the movies fairly accurate to the books, especially considering how much material is in the books. I think the Harry Potter movies should do what the LotR movies with the DVDs: make long movies, and release the uncut versions on DVD. The books are getting longer and longer, so there's a real need to do that.

[Eric]

Many fans are not all that happy with the movies.

Since when are they? You can find tons of fans of the Lord of the Rings books not happy with the films, either. Book nerds will find any reason to bitch about the movie version of the story. They're different mediums, they can't be the exact same thing.....ever.

Wait hold up, how can you go off about Transformers and make this statement?! :p

[Nev]

That is the sweetest fucking thing ever. Thank you for pointing out how douchebaggy all the bullshit I garbaged about above looks in comparison to that picture.

[Nev]

Many fans are not all that happy with the movies.

Since when are they? You can find tons of fans of the Lord of the Rings books not happy with the films, either. Book nerds will find any reason to bitch about the movie version of the story. They're different mediums, they can't be the exact same thing.....ever.

Wait hold up, how can you go off about Transformers and make this statement?! :p

Advantage: Eric.

[Zeus]

Many fans are not all that happy with the movies.

Since when are they? You can find tons of fans of the Lord of the Rings books not happy with the films, either. Book nerds will find any reason to bitch about the movie version of the story. They're different mediums, they can't be the exact same thing.....ever.

Wait hold up, how can you go off about Transformers and make this statement?! :p

That's books vs movies I was referring to. Transformers is a TV show to movie conversion. You do need some differences, yes, but it's the same medium, it's a picture with sound that's telling a story, not a collection of words. It's almost the same thing with very little difference than comparing books to movies.

With Lord of the Rings, you had books that were carefully converted into a movie medium by people who actually cared about the source material and wanted to preserve as much of it as humanly possible while making it work in the new medium it's being transported into. Of course things changed, they had to to make the movie work. Those are actually excellent examples of how you can make a book into a movie.

With Transformers, you have a TV show that's getting touched where it pees, then humiliated publically, then locked up in solitary confinement for years where it's beaten and raped every day for hours on end to break its spirit to have it come out nothing like it went in. Then gets some make-up put on it, some new clothes, and is brought out in a movie version which resembles the TV version only in the most basic manner but really is nothing like it at all. I challenge you to find a single shred of evidence that people behind the movie version give a rat's ass about the source material on any level.

Sorry, Nev, it's not even the same thing. No advantage at all. If anything, I just took it back in spades :-)

[Zeus]

Many fans are not all that happy with the movies.

Since when are they? You can find tons of fans of the Lord of the Rings books not happy with the films, either. Book nerds will find any reason to bitch about the movie version of the story. They're different mediums, they can't be the exact same thing.....ever.

I think the movies of both series have done a damn good job of trying to make the movies fairly accurate to the books, especially considering how much material is in the books. I think the Harry Potter movies should do what the LotR movies with the DVDs: make long movies, and release the uncut versions on DVD. The books are getting longer and longer, so there's a real need to do that.

Can't do that with Harry, you have a completed different demographic. Remember, Lord of the Rings is, what, 50+ years old? It's ingrained in world literature and is loved equally by literal scholars and computer nerds alike. The majority of the fans of the books, and there are generations upon generations of them, would want to sit through a long movie and enjoy the story through and through.

With Harry, the vast majority of the fans are less than 25, most less than 18. You think they want to sit through a 3 1/2 hour+ film? In today's ADD society, there's no chance. Besides, you can't even begin to compare the depth of Harry vs Lord of the Rings. That would be crazy talk. And you would need the depth to be able to carry through a series of 3+ hour films.

Additional events and plot points doesn't add depth, it's the character development and flushing out of the world that does. Maybe that's what the movies are missing and they should focus on. But then people would bitch more as there would be even more events missing.

[Nev]

Sorry, Nev, it's not even the same thing. No advantage at all. If anything, I just took it back in spades :-)

No, you really didn't. Nobody gives a shit about the supposed "raping" of Transformers here except you. Seriously, bro. I usually respect your posts around here, but the Transformers stuff is starting to remind me of a set of speakers that's loose and is starting to buzz unpleasantly. It was a good try on getting us to care, but I have a game to go work on.

[Julius Seeker]

Off topic, but I have another question about Harry Potter: anyone ever notice that he looks like kind of a dork? =P

[Eric]

Off topic, but I have another question about Harry Potter: anyone ever notice that he looks like kind of a dork? =P

You dummy, that's intended.