#dumbeldore is the villain

[ultrahelo]

Marauders' era au

It's a late night idea. I've watched the show 1899 and I tought about the fact that an au with the marauders would be incredible.

It's a psycological show which look a bit like The maze runner story, but on a ship in 1899. I don't really want to spoil so it's only ideas.

What if all the marauders were people that Dumbeldore studied about by exemple : Sirius woke up after a nightmare with some memories : him being enchained by people and someone put a serum in his veins (that is when he woke up.) He remembered his name, the date and he had a letter with is name written on it, he also knows that his brother needed him in New York (that’s why he is supposedly on the ship)

He visited the place, he knew everything wasn't normal but he tried to fill in. (As Maura in the show).

And in the show everyone is from another country, there is different social classes which is really interesting too !

The main character can also be Lily, with James as the captain of the ship and Severus as her husband she forgot. (Watch the show to understand why I say that) but it can also be Narcissa (Maura), Lucius (Daniel , even if Lucius is too much of a coward to be him) and the captain Eyk can be someone else…

The gay characters can be Wolfstar, Remus as Krester or Ramiro (even if Krester is better for him in a way) and Sirius as Àngel (rich Spanish man who run away from his family with a man because they were caught ! Homophobia and all)

The French people can also be Lily (Clémence) James (Jérôme) and Severus (Lucien), because of the dynamics between them…

Tove as Mary (because of what they went through both in the canon story and in the show) and she is so strong and I ship it with Clemence who can be Lily …

Ling Yi and Olek I don’t know which character they can be but please if someone see this don’t hesitate to tell me !!!

Of course things can be changed but I really like the idea of period drama with experience on the human brain and everything!!

Don’t hesitate to watch the show ! It is truly an amazing show with great actors and a fantastic plot !

[miriammctroi]

Regulus's Perspective on Voldemort & Dumbledore

my favourite headcanon when writing Regulus Black war-time fanfiction is that he would see Dumbledore and Voldemort as the same kind of evil.

Unlearning his entire upbringing and view of the world (muggle-borns, purebloods, etc.) while his indoctrination continues through family, friends, classmates, and Voldemort himself is near impossible. No doubt, he is starting to learn that his people are wrong and that non-purebloods are—at least—human beings deserving of life.

BUT he isn't reformed when he starts working against Voldemort. At all. That deep-set prejudice takes time to unlearn - and he isn't exactly focusing on that.

So, here is how he experiences this war:

Voldemort has an idea about what is good and bad for wizarding society. He indoctrinates people. Makes himself their saviour, leader, Lord. He indoctrinates children and uses them to recruit other children at Hogwarts. He uses these children and their families as pawns in his war. He doesn't care whether they die or who they hold dear. They're his soldiers. He brands 16-year-olds with the Dark Mark. They are his to use. They will die for him.

Dumbledore has an idea about good and evil, too. He makes himself the saviour, the leader of the good side. He declares it as the good side. He establishes the Order of the Phoenix. He recruits his own students for the Order. He uses those students to recruit more. He uses these children and their families as pawns in his war. He doesn't care whether they die or who they hold dear. They're his soldiers. They are his to use. They will die for him.

Regulus sees the Voldemort side with himself, Evan and Barty. He sees it when Voldemort almost kills Kreacher.

He sees the Dumbledore side with James. He sees his brother and his lover and all their friends suddenly become part of a secret resistance fighting group before or shortly after leaving school.

They are two sides of the same coin for him. That's why Regulus did his own research about the Horcruxes and went to die alone in the cave rather than inform the Order about his theories and ask for help.

[introvertgoat]

ron/hermione/the weasleys/etc bashing of any sort is always so extremely boring and repetitive to me in harry potter fanfic omg like no instead of dissecting and examining these flawed and interesting characters in an intriguing and/or different light u decide to stoop to turning then into shallow, barely fleshed out characters 😭😭😭😭😭😭 and 9 out of 10 times it’s so harry can be some OP, dark, usually slytherin, badass like no i’m sorry i can’t

[applebuttercringe]

Asexual Viktor Controversy Explained (By an Asexual)

You may have heard of the new controversy tearing the Arcane community apart. To summarize: Christian Linke (Co-creator of Arcane) was asked in a german interview about Jayvik and responded that it is not canon by explaining that Viktor is intended to be Asexual. He then talked about the importance of Asexual representation.

This has sparked a number of reactions from Arcane fans, and especially Asexual Arcane fans. Most of the reactions are some mixture of the following points.

Reasons people don't like it:

It's just to invalidate Jayvik: A lot of people are angry because Christian Linke is well known for not liking Jayvik, and so some people believe he only said Viktor was Asexual in order to try and get rid of Jayvik. Thus creating the impression that the only purpose of making Viktor Asexual was to invalidate an mlm relationship. Or that Christian Linke only did it because he is homophobic.

It wasn't in the show: The claim that this was always the intention for Viktors character is brought into doubt when you consider that this obscure interview is the only time Viktor has ever been said to be Asexual. Several of the other writers, animators, and artists who worked on Arcane have said Jayvik is canon. Which creates the impression that this was not an intentional choice that was discussed thoroughly in the writers room and interwoven into the story, but rather a last minute addition by Christian Linke after the fact. Kind of like J.K. Rowling making Dumbeldore gay or Hermione black in a tweet, just added for attention and representation points. Asexual people deserve purposeful depictions.

It plays into Asexual stereotypes: A common and very damaging stereotype about Asexual people is that they are emotionless, lonely, or inhuman. With so many people believing romance is what makes us human, or that it is unnatural to not experience sexuality and therefore it is bad. Often lack of romantic or sexual desire is equated to lack of any kind of love or emotional coldness. Viktors story is largely about him being isolated and lonely for most of his life, being abandonned by his only close relationships, and eventually ridding himself of all emotions. He is shown to hate human emotion and actively tries to rid himself of his own humanity. It isn't hard to see how Viktor being the only Asexual representation in the show could reinforce harmful stereotypes about Asexual people. He has a whole monologue where he disavows human passion. This is really what bothers me about Viktor's Asexuality confirmation. If this really was intentional, they were playing into stereotypes. The only asexual character being made into an inhuman villain who's motivation is hatred for emotion and gets their via rejection of love is pretty rough.

It plays into stereotypes about Disabled people: This I know the least about, so I will just summarize what I have seen. Disabled people are often portrayed as sexless as a result of their perceived "undesirableness". This creates a steretype of equating disabledness to uglyness to asexuality. This is damaging as it perpetuated many stereotypes. It is used to infantalize both disabled and asexual people. It also treats asexuality like a symptom of a disorder. Good resources to learn more:

Christian Linke doesn't seem to understand Asexuality: Christian Linke calls Viktor Asexual. But it seems that the terminology he meant to use is Asexual/Aromantic. He seems to say that Jayvik CAN'T be canon becasue Viktor is asexual, but asexual doesn't mean aromantic. He can be Ace and Gay. Thus how him being asexual doesn't invalidate Jayvik. If he really did intend for Asexual Viktor to be canon this whole time, he probably should have done more research about the nature of Asexuality.

Creating controversy: Considering the all consuming power house that Jayvik has become in the Arcane fandom, it should have been expected that the co-creator rebuffing it would not be taken well. This whole thing has sparked a lot of discourse and caused for both Jayvik shippers to be inundated with comments of people calling them acephobic for shipping Jayvik, and Asexual Viktor enjoyers being shouted down. A lot of asexual fans are annoyed by the communities violently negative response to Asexual Viktor. Overall it feels like this whole thing has just thrown everyone under the bus.

Reasons people did like it:

Asexual Representation!: Asexual people are some of the least represented of the Queer community. They are also some of the most misunderstood by popular culture. A show as popular as Arcane having a canon Asexual charachter is a huge win, especially one as beloved by the community as Viktor. Despite the sometimes stereotypicalness of his story, many Asexual people deeply connect with Viktor and headcanoning him as Aro/Ace has been popular since Season 1.

Reading Jayvik as a deeply loving platonic relationship is very touching for Asexual people especially. One of the most prevalent stereotypes about Aro/Ace people is that their lives are lonely or meaningless because they don't experience sexual/romantic love. This is of course wrong, and deeply Amatonormative. Arcane depicting a deeply close, world endingly loving platonic relationship between two men is great and sorely needed. For this reason many Asexual people love this development as it shows a fulfilling, important, loving relationship that is sex free. Breaking one of the biggest stereotypes about Asexual people and the very nature of love. In this way Platonic Jayvik is just as groundbreaking a story as Romantic Jayvik.

Doesn't invalidate Jayvik: Asexuality is a spectrum, and it is distinct from being Aromantic. Asexual people can experience occasional sexual attraction, or be sex neutral and still have sex for the benefit of a partner. Viktor being Asexual doesn't disqualify him from being gay, or being in a romantic/sexual relationship with Jayce. It doesn't stop Jayvik from existing in the way Christian Linke seems to think it does.

Final Thought: I'm Asexual. I.... like the idea. However the execution leaves a lot to be desired. The foundation is their but this is still a deeply flawed piece of representation (if we even consider it representation at all). It feels like the kind of idea that we will see written so much better on AO3. I look forward to seeing that.

In terms of Jayvik, I don't think it is Acephobic to continue to ship Jayvik/write Jayvik Smut. the canonicity of this is dubious anyways and considering how wide spread and loved Jayvik is it would be ridiculous to demand people stop writing about them, or delete their hundred thousand word fanfictions/fancomics just because of an interview. People are deeply invested in Jayvik, it would suck to take that away. Keep doing what you are doing. I fully stand by the idea that Jayvik is left purposely open to interpretation. I love Platonic and Romantic Jayvik.

Fuck it. Trans/Genderfluid/Asexual/Gay Viktor. Thats what I believe.

(Please don't harass any of the people who's tweets were included)

[atlasdoe]

Are we ever going to talk about how The Marauders fandom is physically unable to like a character unless they're flawless

this is kinda a rant so if your sensitive don't read but i've been seeing a pattern recently

like for example:

The headcannon that Sirius lost all of his friends and regretted the prank when in cannon nobody gave a shit apart from Snape

The headcannon that Mary obliviated herself turning into Dumbledore obliviating Mary. I swear people started noting how selfish it could be to erase the memories of your friends who died in a war and leave their orphaned son so the fandom had to change the headcannon so that Mary doesn't do it but Dumbledore does cause god forbid one of these characters actually does something shitty on their own accord

Any idea of Regulus, Barty or Evan going to Dumbeldore for help and Dumbledore rejecting them. Dumbledore would've jumped on having another Death Eater spy for him. When have we ever seen him turn anyone down???

Literally anything relating to Regulus Barty and Evan being forced to do things

I literally once saw somebody say "what if the only reason why Barty was with Bellatrix was because they were having a memorial for Regulus and he was innocent the entire time"

Any kind of excuse that people give for Remus marrying and impregnating Tonks only to run the moment responsibility crops up

Calling misogyny whenever a female character is a villain in a fic or whenever Lily or Tonks are bad mothers (i've talked about this before but fanfiction does not equal headcannons and just because Lily or Tonks or anyone is a bad parent in a fic or is villaised doesn't mean that the writer doesn't like the character or sees them as a bad person)

Ignoring that Evan was friends with Snape, Mulciber, Avery and Wilkes while at Hogwarts (people the fandom villainies)

Any excuse that anyone comes up with for what James and Sirius did in Snapes worst memory

i could go on and on but my point is that nearly every character in the marauders era that we have information on is in some way morally grey and i am so sick of seeing people excuse their actions or coming up with far fetched headcannons to make them more "likeable" I LIKE THEN FUCKED UP A LITTLE STOP MAKING THEM SO BORING

[sideprince]

You know, I don't get people not getting past that first impression, though. Because it's established in book one that Snape is not only protecting Harry and isn't the villain, and not only that his threatening of Quirrell was done on Dumbledore's behalf, but that all the hints about him being a villain were a misdirect. This continues throughout all the books -- at the duelling club where he chooses to disarm rather than hurt his opponent, after the TriWizard Tournament where he owns his past and shows Fudge his Dark Mark and accepts being a double agent, alerting the Order to Harry's warning when he talks to him in code in Umbridge's office, the list goes on. Every book contains allusions and foreshadowing that tells the reader that Snape isn't what he seems, and his actions always benefit the "good" side. When he kills Dumbledore the literal words Rowling uses to describe him are the same ones she uses to describe a chapter earlier when he had to cause Dumbeldore pain against his own will in the cave. I remember noticing this immediately because it's not even that subtly done, and then I remember a whole lot of other people noticing it too, a lot of whom weren't even in the fandom. Everything that's revealed in the Prince's Tale chapter about what kind of person Snape is, is not a surprise but a confirmation of repeated hints and foreshadowing.

People who don't want to get past their first impression of Snape as someone to hate. The series hits them over the head with arguments against that impression, saying "this is what I wanted you to think, haha! Look at my plot twist!" Anyone who holds onto that first impression is very much choosing to do so against all that is in the actual text itself. I think that a lot of the people @sal-absinthii is referring to want to view the world through a Disney film lens - there are only heroes and villains, villains must be destroyed, and that can only be done through removing them, not through any kind of reform or personal change. Anything more complex requires too much energy, just get rid of the thing causing the headache. So it makes sense that these people would completely miss all the very basic literary elements glaring them in the face.

Snape Hate is classist - and the malfoys demonstrate it

Before we knew of Snape’s true background, fanfics seemed to treat him as essentially a Lucius Malfoy - cruel, aristocratic, and often a pureblood.  Basically a 🌶 spicy 🌶 daddy 🌶 really.  But since the books revealed his working-class background, Snape in fandom has become far more controversial even than Lucius Malfoy, or Voldemort/Tom Riddle (whose canon actions are far worse).  Snape is unique in that some people who hate him are angry that other people like him, which suggests a perception of moral reprehensiveness: that it is wrong to like him, to explore his character, or that there is something wrong with a fan who does so. 

It’s also worth noting that upper class status is often used in hp fan content to rehabilitate the Malfoys.  Its makes them attractive.  A lot of fanfics highlight the virtuousness of a Malfoy forsaking their high social status or material wealth for love, or using these things for ‘good’. (No shade, ship and let ship xx)

It suggests that Snape’s class background (rather than the severity of his actions) implicitly makes him irredeemable to some.  People who seek out Snape content to negatively engage with it may attribute their hate to his actions, but it’s notable that other characters who have done worse don’t receive the same ire.   it’s fascinating tbh 

[revelio-obscurus]

Chapter 17/199 The Man With Two Faces

Today, we will be discussing Harry Potter through the theme of “Love.” How do we see “love” expressed or having an effect in Chapter 17 of the Harry Potter series? Of course, we have Harry’s mother’s love which is coursing through his veins and allows him to defeat Professor Quirrell (according to Albus Dumbledore)—this is perhaps the most obvious example of “love” we see in this section. But what about self-love? What about passion and desire? In this chapter, Harry again comes face-to-face with the Mirror of Erised, a magical object that shows us the deepest desires of our hearts (in other words: what we would most love to have or have happen to us). Finally, we will discuss the concept of making choices as it relates to love, self-love, as well as what we would love to have and have happen to us. 

What really stood out to me about today’s chapter was Harry thinking “I must lie” when Quirrell demands he look in the mirror and tell him what he sees. This is because I have been reading Book Five with my sister for months now, and in this book, he has the exact opposite statement carved into his hand by Dolores Umbridge: I must not tell lies.

What’s really messed up about Umbridge’s punishment, of course, is that Harry is not lying at all—and yet he is forced through this inhumane and torturous punishment. But through it all, what’s ironic is Harry sticks to his guns and continues to tell the truth, even as Umbridge is being rushed away by centaurs in Chapter 33 of that book.

I love that at the start of Book Five one of Harry’s father figures, Arthur Weasley, speaks to him before his trial, assuring him “the truth will out”! We don’t know if this will be the case, but Arthur works throughout the series to instill the values of truth and honesty in all of his children, including Harry. For example, in Book Three when he confesses his desire to tell Harry the truth about Sirius Black.

One might think, however, reading Chapter 17 of the Harry Potter series: “Okay, I get we shouldn’t tell lies. But in this case, shouldn’t Harry lie to Quirrell about what he sees in the mirror? Otherwise, Voldemort would know he has the Stone and he and his worthy follower would steal it.”

This is a good point. And we do see the benefits of lying throughout the series. One notable example is when Draco Malfoy lies to the other Death Eaters in Book Seven, saying he does not recognize Harry and this indisputably saves Harry from meeting his demise in Malfoy Manor (okay, it’s not certain whether he is “lying”, but I consider this canon). A second example would be when Severus Snape lies to Umbridge when Harry relays a secret message to him about Sirius during the Fifth Book—he tells Umbridge he has “no idea” what Harry is talking about, but later uses the secret information to round up the Order of the Phoenix.

That being said, if we turn back to this chapter, we discover that when Harry does lie to Quirrell, his efforts are for naught— Voldemort immediately calls him a liar and it leads to them meeting face-to-face anyway! Therefore, we can see that his lie did not help him avoid the inevitable. 

I think it’s interesting to see how we can go from “I must lie” to “I must not tell lies” from Book 1 to Book 5 and how, more often than not, Harry feels called upon to stand up and tell the truth—even if his voice shakes. Or even if he’s standing alone.

What’s immensely powerful about this scene in Chapter 17 is that Harry doesn’t even resort to using any magic or knowledge he is aware of to fight back against Quirrell and Voldemort. He actually is in such grave danger, that his body reacts instinctively: “Quirrell raised his hand to perform a deadly curse, but Harry, by instinct, reached up and grabbed Quirrell’s face.” Our instinct is something we find at our very core, as animals. We all naturally react to the environment around us just as our fellow animals do, and in times of danger, we are sent into “fight or flight” mode which is deeply encoded in our DNA. In my opinion, our instinct, as it is revealed to us during life-and-death scenarios, is one of the most honest and truthful things in this universe.

And what is the result of Harry’s instinctive grabbing of Quirrell’s face? “Quirrell rolled off him, his face blistering too, and then Harry knew: Quirrell couldn’t touch his bare skin, not without suffering terrible pain.”

We know from Dumbeldore’s explanation later in the chapter that it was Harry’s mother’s love running through his veins that made it impossible for Voldemort, and therefore Quirrell, to touch Harry. It was the magic of this love that made it possible for Harry to escape the villain’s clutches.

Or was it?

Or maybe I should say, “Was it just his mother’s love?”

Was it really only his mother’s love that saved him?

This was Harry’s first time in his living memory coming close to death. He realizes the urgency of the situation right away, which is astounding for an 11-year-old child. He knows that if he doesn’t find the Stone, he is going to be killed. He knows that if Voldemort finds the Stone because of him finding it, he’s going to be killed. He knows that Voldemort is lying when he says that his parents died begging for mercy. (Note: his mother did die begging him to not kill Harry, this is true, but the way he is presenting the story to Harry is a lie in and of itself because of all the gaps and holes amongst his presentation of events). 

When Quirrell destroys his own hands after trying to strangle Harry (they became “burnt, red, and shiny”) Harry knows that the only thing he can do is trust in what he knows to be TRUE (and not a lie). “His only chance was to keep hold of Quirrell, keep him in enough pain to stop him from doing a curse.” This submission to what is true is what allows his body to react on instinct, thus saving his life. One could also say that submitting to what is true is an act of self-love. Harry refuses to fight against what he knows to be true and trusts in himself, letting go to instinct. And that acceptance and trust in oneself is a powerful act of self-love that, in addition to his mother’s love, saves him in this scene.

**

Chapter 17 re-introduces us to Quirrell as a man with two faces. And in life, we also have two (or more) faces. But how often do we see our “true” faces reflecting back at us when we look in a mirror? What would we see if we looked into the Mirror of Erised? And when we see that, will we lie to ourselves or others about what we see? Many great people have lied while looking into the Mirror of Erised, for example Albus Dumbledore in Chapter 12 and Harry himself in this very chapter. And what do they gain from these lies?

Going back to our theme about “Love” today, I feel as if I’m being called to look into the Mirror of Erised myself—to find out who I really am, what I truly love and desire in my life. And when I look in the Mirror, I’ll then be faced with several choices. Do I lie to myself or to others about what I see? Do I keep it a secret for now because I don’t think others are ready to know? One might argue that’s why Dumbledore lies about seeing a pair of wool socks in the Mirror. Harry didn’t need to know what Dumbeldore’s deepest desire was at that moment. And Dumbeldore doesn’t have to share what he sees—but the fact that he chooses to lie instead of telling the truth highlights another very important point. Even wixen as wise as Dumbledore sometimes listen to that inner voice that whispers: “I must lie.” For whatever reason—and that reason might be justifiable or not. But either way, it is YOUR choice whether to lie, keep something to yourself, or tell the truth.  

It is our choices that makes us who we are, far more than our abilities. Today, I see many opportunities to make choices. I can look into the Mirror of Erised, or not. I can lie to myself about what I see, or not. I can lie to others, tell the truth, or say nothing to them about what I see. I can keep staring longingly at the Mirror, or I can take small steps towards my deepest desire in the real world.

When I imagine myself standing in front of the Mirror of Erised, I see myself reading, scribbling with a quill, making connections between books, films, songs, plays, art, and real-life experiences. As I start to understand the world and myself more and more, I am collecting my ideas and thoughts into stories, essays, and articles—sharing them with the world. In the Mirror, I see myself tying parchment to the legs of owls and sending them off into the world. I don’t always know who’s going to receive my writing. I only hope that whoever does can glean something meaningful from the words and start to understand the world and themselves just a little bit more.

[theartfuldodger26]

So, you know how one of the favourite past-times of the average Potterhead is laughng/getting mad at Dumbledore’s favourtism over Gryffindor and Harry in particular. I mean, there are a million jokes about how Dumbeldore awards Harry points for wearing cool robes one moment before the end of term, while flabbergasted students of Slytherin, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff repress the urge to cry and/or kill Dumbledore. And with good reason; they spent the semester doing *school* things for they *school* and then Harry comes along with Voldemort’s head on a plate, Fawkes the Phoenix singing the victory song over his head. Well, you can’t beat that, can you? And that’s exactly the point!

Wouldn’t you award hundreds of points to the kid who saved everyone’s ass? The villain could be Voldemort, an escaped murderer, the giant squid that has an identity crisis for all we care. In any case, if you think about it, Harry, Ron and everyone else who was awarded points for saving the world really *did* deserve those bloody points. The real question is, in fact: why does it awlays come down to a bunch of teenagers to save the most famous school and occasionally the whole wizarding world? Doesn’t it raise questions on the safety mechanisms of the Ministry against ‘evil’? Doesn’t it leave you wondering about what in the name of Ravenclaw are Dumbledore and the school board doing when, not only the school is threatened by increasingly more dangerous villains, but also how easy it is for Harry to track them down? 

Seriously, would you feel okay sending your kid to that school when you’ll just have to cling on the hope that this year’s mass murderer will be stopped by a teenagers? Because, you know, we’ve all spent our entire lives hoping we’d be accepted to Hogwarts, but... *eyes the books greedily* Oh fuck it, I’d go anyway, whom am I kidding? 

[baka-monarch]

Okay

First of all- they wouldn't be separated gender wise by wizard and witch, they'd all be witches, and a wizard is someone who specializes in a specific magic

Secondly. No chosen one, or at least nobody realizing who is the chosen one instead of Albus being like "WELP Harry has the physical scar so it's him and not the baby who's been mentally scarred and had several mental illnesses now from Voldemort!"

Less of a distinction on Voldemort being evil and his followers all being evil, yeah they were morally wrong for what they did but their humans. Humans should act like humans and not like Greek gods or some emotionless one demential robot. I know Rowling have Voldemort a sad backstory- but when she wrote present day him he didn't act like he had that tragic backstory. I want villains who act human but still should be murdered because of their racism because that's how the real world works!

Completely get rid of that thing in the dorms that stops boys from going to the girls' rooms but still let's girls go into the boys' rooms. It's sexist and dumb

More LGBTQ+ representation, more poc characters, and more characters who genuinely aren't humans and are like magical creatures with human intelligence. You can't tell me those aren't I'm the magical world- I wanna see a house elf learning magic with me at Hogwarts thank you!

Either make Dumbeldore racist or not have house elves work at Hogwarts. I'm sorry but that genuinely doesn't add up- if he doesn't look down at house elves like slaves/lesser beings, then why the fuck are they still slaves at Hogwarts. One or the other people, we can't have both (when I say this I mean towards house elves specifically, because he acts like he wants house elves to be free like Harry but then keeps them as slaves still. Please that does not make sense-)

Have more heros have villainous characteristics! Have them have more moments of acting morally wrong! You're heros aren't perfect!

Explain why Lily and James are together. They never fell in love when Harry was looking at their memories of each other growing up, so how did they ever end up together- seriously

Goooooood there's just so much I would change- honestly if I could I would just write a completely different story with different characters in the same universe of I could-

Pssssst. Pssssst! What fantasy series that you've read would you want to fix the most if you could?

Either Percy Jackson (gotta finish reading it so might change my answer there), Harry Potter, or Twilight (obviously)

But since Harry Potter is the one I've actually read all of- Harry Potter, I have many ideas pertaining to it's universe that if I could I'd write a whole book series just to replace the originals

[sandorayukiko]

Opinion about the show Shadow Hunters

Overall I like the show very much. The stories are always entertaining and new. Apart from the cringworthy dialogues from time to time.

To the characters and pairings.

Hm I love Magnus & Alec (and I’m so glad that it’s a official couple) mehehe my opinion. Magnus is such a cinnamon roll and I couldn’t even get angry with him when he was an ass. Alec is the perfect opponent. Calm and a little to strict at the beginning.

I like Simon a lot. He is loyal & caring. At first I loved the Clary & Simon paring until she ruined it. But to be honest I love Maia & Simon so much more. Clary is toxic.

Maia is so cool. Her character is really well written and she is on one hand emotional bit also strong and independent.

Hell I dislike Clary. She’s extremely annoying. Like wtf. I read somewhere that her book Chara is even more annoying. So would I even hate or more in the books?¿¡! A little mary sue that even when she screw things up doesn’t apologies. Ex. That Simon had to be thankful she picked Jace as her true love. Because in her mind she safed them. Why didn’t she try and kiss Simon first? It’s the same with the Gordon, Lee and Valerie incident.

About Jace I’m not so sure. He is sometimes annoying sometimes fine. I don’t like the Jace x Clary Pairing or dialogues. But it doesn’t truly matter.

Also Luke I’m not so fond of. Mostly when he always took side of Clary in the beginning. Now I find him better as a true leader of the werewolves.

Or Jocelyn Clary’s mother. I hate it when people don’t tell important things and the main reason is mostly that the said person couldn’t handle the informations. Well Harry Potter is greeting (Dumbeldore even apologied to him about his lack of trust in the strength of HP).

Valentin well Valentin. He is a good villain that I like to see to be bunched in the face or elsewhere. No truly. He is a well written character. Good that Jocelyn left him.

Jonathan ha. The actors is superb. As much I would have loved to see him switch sides how things went is better.

Oh and almost forgot the elve Queen. Her obsession with Simon is strange. I wonder what she wants from him.

Looking forward to see more in season 3.

I will see if I read the books.

[safitheartist]

Sounds about priveledged.

Seriously.

Who the fuck cares if Jonny Depp did a good job?! People weren't opposed to him because he is a bad actor. They were opposed to him because he is a shitty human being.

"Unanswered questions" you mean like the vilains actual motivation? Or the main characters for that matter?

Also of course. Sure. There was absolutely no way to convey to the audience that Dumbeldor is gay without publicly outing him. Absolutely. There has never been any movies centered around gay people during time periods that endanger them.

Nagini as a character just makes zero sense. Like nada. This woman is treated as a curiocity for performing a "act" we have seen other people in thier would perform constantly. Like what's the big deal that she can turn into a animal? Like? Hello? Sure she one day will stay a snake but the mere act of turning into one should not be a big deal to anybody. Also lets not even touch the implications of a Korean lady being treated as a exotic circus act and later being owned by the main antagonist of the whole harry potter series.

Sure. Baby Nifflers. Cute.

You know what is not though? Implying the villain would have stopped the hollocaust. Making said villain a allogory for Nazis and have the only jewish character join him for nonesensical reasons. Have a fucking slave rape plot. And about 50 more fuckeries this movie had thrown in while pretending to have a plot.

Or in other words. People have a reason to be mad at this piece of shit and it being only a bad movie aint it.

Just a quick statement because I feel like I need to do it with all the hate going on right now:

I loved Crimes of Grindelwald!

I know it’s not perfect, but it doesn’t deserve your hate!

1. Of course there are unanswered questions, but you know what, there are still 3 movies coming up!

2. The film is set in the 1920s. What do you expect Dumbledore to do, run around with a rainbow flag?

3. I wasn’t all that found of the casting of Johnny Depp too, but guess what, he did a very good job!

4. Nagini was a interesting character and I’m looking forward to seeing more of her. Her nationality was completely unimprotant btw.

5. Newt is the first autistic main character I know which isn’t based on the fact that he is autstic and I think that’s remarkable.

6. There were baby Niffler. That’s it, the film is perfect!

Regards

[atlasdoe]

no bcs i think dumbles was a trash headmaster and i would've had him stepping down from the headmaster position OR solely focusing in that bcs i feel like he was biting more than he could chew (then again the british educational system has always sucked and nobody gave a fuck about kids so can i? entirely blame him? not truly), BUT blame him for everything???? EVERYTHING???? people are sick. or too young. and need to read more.

yeah i realllg don't understand how people truly believe that Dumbledore is the root to all evil. I swear people are more mad at him for certain characters deaths more then they are at fucking Voldemort.

The thing with Dumbledore is that he's morally grey. He's not the perfect mentor that we're led to believe he is but that doesn't make him a full blown villain. He is not responsible for every bad thing that's happened in the series

and it's SO ANNOYING cause it's taking away everything that made these characters interesting. Like acting as if everyone in the Order was manipulated into joining takes away so much from them.

And as for the Death Eaters don't even get me started. Evan and Barty in particular died because of their own actions. They committed crimes, they were supposed to be arrested but they resisted and instead were killed. Dumbledore has literally no hand in that because he's not apart of the justice system and has never shown any signs of wanting to be

And as for the people who died during the Battle of Hogwarts blaming Dumbledore is just plain dumb. Dumbledore was literally already dead at this point and speaking of Remus and Tonks as if they were fully adults doing their job (as part of the Order and in Tonks case literally her job. It's her fucking job to fight bad wizards. It's what she gets paid for. She's a fucking auror) with the kids it's more McGonagalls fault if anything for letting the kids fight in the battle to begin with. But the fandom love McGonagall so they'd never admit it. Either way Dumbledore was already six feet under and played literally no part in the battle or had a say in who fought it (HE WAS LITERALLY DEAD)

Also while we're here let's talking about everyone else

James and Lily Dumbledore literally put in hiding to protect them "but he took the invisibility cloak" no. James gave him the cloak. We don't know why but considering James and Lily were in hiding and their lives were in the hands of their best friend Peter it's not hard to imagine that they deemed themselves safe enough to hand Dumbledore a cloak that wouldn't have fitted all three of them anyway

Cedric Diggory died because of three people and their names are Peter Pettigrew, Barty Crouch Jr and Voldemort. Maybe at best i'll give you that Dumbeldore wasn't looking into the odd things happening at Hogwarts (like Harry being chosen) enough but then you'll have to be prepared to blame every other teacher as well

Marlene, Dorcas, Pandora, Alice, Frank, and practically every other marauders era character had very little cannon information about their death but none of their deaths mention anything to do with Dumbledore. How tf is Dumbledore to blame for Pandora experimenting with spells???

Regulus is the same with Barty and Evan. That man went into the cave by himself because of something Kreacher told him about Voldemort. IF DUMBLEDORE KNEW THAT REGULUS WENT INTO THET CAVE AND KNEW ABOUT THE LOCKET THEN WHY THE FUCK WOULD HE TAKE THE LITERAL CHOSEN ONE WHO HAS TO BE KILLED BY VOLDEMORT INTO A DEATH CAVE TO GET A PHONY LOCKET??????????

As i've said I don't even like Dumbledore like that but this fandom is killing me with all of this frankly stupid nonsense and it's killing my braincells

[internerdionality]

Fantastic Beasts 2

Do the original Harry Potter books ever actually say that Grindelwald was anti-muggle?

Cause I'm pretty sure he's just described as a "dark wizard"? And in my head all this time, I always figured he was this super PRO-muggle and like total LEFTIST "terrorist" (freedom fighter).

And I seriously don't know why they didn't go there in the films because it would have:

A. Been way less problematic and made way more sense for him as a gay character and Dumbledore's big love interest;

B. Made Dumbeldore even more interesting and gray of a character—HP is so black and white I think anything that adds more nuance is great (and also furthers my reading of the series in which Dumbledore is more of a villain); and

C. Made the whole political setup of the series make WAY MORE SENSE. Voldemort NEVER made sense as a villain, because wizarding society has so much institutionalized oppression and inequality—why would someone who wants to *uphold* those values be *rebelling* against the system? Why would Voldemort be trying to overthrow the Ministry when he has so much support from inside it that he could clearly have just taken over WITHOUT actually killing anybody? Except that if actually, muggleborns used to be EVEN MORE oppressed until there was a huge civil rights movement in the 20s with Grindelwald being, essentially, the much-maligned John Brown figure and Dumbledore as Frederick Douglass—okay, THEN having a societal backlash makes SENSE, and so does having Voldemort not be able to grab power—because despite the institutionalized bigotry/oppression, Dumbledore has been able to get enough laws passed to make it impossible for him to roll the clocks back from within the system the way he wants. And, of course, that makes the analogy of the Deatheaters being KKK even smoother.

[todaynewsstories]

Dark, new ‘Fantastic Beasts’ movie grounded in real world

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Albus Dumbeldore is a young professor at Hogwarts School; the charismatic but evil Gellert Grindelwald is determined to manipulate the world for his own ends; and Newt Scamander, with his magical suitcase of strange creatures, is trying to stop him.

FILE PHOTO: Actor Eddie Redmayne attends the British premiere of ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ movie in London, Britain, November 13, 2018. REUTERS/File Photo

The wizarding world created by J.K. Rowling returns to the big screen this week with “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald,” and its dark themes are grounded firmly in the real world.

Set in 1927, some 70 years before Rowling’s best-selling “Harry Potter” books and movies, “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald” is the second in a spinoff movie series that explores the fight between good and evil, and between tolerance and acceptance.

“The thing that has always been extraordinary about (Rowling’s) work is people relate to aspects of it, whether it is specific character traits or vulnerabilities or a political climate,” said Eddie Redmayne, who plays Scamander.

“Yet she shrouds it in this world that is so magical and sort of wonderful that you don’t feel like you’re being hit by it until you start thinking about it afterwards,” the actor told Reuters Television.

Rowling has said that the rise of populist politics in modern times was on her mind when she began writing the screenplays for the first two movies, but she has not said if she had a specific person or country in mind.

The new film’s 1927 setting sees Grindelwald, played by Johnny Depp, address huge rallies that incite his followers to violence.

“One of the things that Grindelwald does so well is that he has an insane goal. But… he makes it sound so reasonable,” said Alison Sudol, who plays mind-reader Queenie Goldstein in the movie.

Zoe Kravitz, who plays Scamander’s love interest Leta Lestrange, said she thought the Grindelwald character could be modeled after any kind of person with seductive power.

Whatever the inspiration, Depp was a good choice to play him, Kravitz said.

“He is so charismatic and intelligent and I think he’s the perfect person to play a villain like this. He’s so kind of seductive in a way,” she said.

Reporting by Reuters Television; Editing by Lisa Shumaker

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Source link

The post Dark, new ‘Fantastic Beasts’ movie grounded in real world appeared first on Today News Stories.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2DGt4Jd via IFTTT

[thegamewhiz]

Not to mention requesting full loyalty of this manner is despotic. We know this, because she who shall not be named demanded utter loyalty to the Ministry as evidenced by teaching classes they wanted (resulting in DA).

In addition, she forced loyalty on Harry by cursing him to only tell the truth.

So it becomes a despot against a despot. Sure Voldemort is magic Hitler, but at the same time Dumbeldore used people to win in horrific ways such as plotting Harry's death.

So it becomes is it okay to trust a calculator to beat the greater evil? Someone who coldly manipulates (Harry being put in an abusive household I bet wasn't a coincidence, seems odd to place him there), in order to defeat worse?

This isn't defending Voldemort so much as showing that Dumbeldore isn't necessarily a kind and valiant man that beat Voldemort by being a villain himself, betraying children and putting them in danger, thus setting up questions of greater goods and lesser evils.

Also, Snape is still an asshole, even with the excuse they give

Just like Slughorn, Albus Dumbledore collects people. Only, instead of focusing on those with influence, he looks to the outcasts.

The expelled half-giant. The young werewolf. The repentant Death Eater.

He protects them and gives them a second chance. All he asks in return is their loyalty.

And, if on occasion he requests that they undertake a certain task, invoking their debt of gratitude - well, that is no more than he is owed.

He once thought to add a certain disowned Black to his collection, but quickly realised his mistake.

Sirius is not an outcast, but a rebel. He knowingly chose his path, and chooses what price he is willing to pay for it. He refuses to be used.

So Albus Dumbledore abandons him.

[flavoracle]

Things to keep in mind:

Bucky didn’t die when he fell off that train and into the canyon

Aladdin didn’t die when Jafar pushed him off that cliff into the crumbling Cave of Wonders

Mulan didn’t die when she fell off the cliff during an avalanche

Wesley didn’t die when the rope was cut while climbing the cliff after Buttercup

Joy didn’t die when she fell out the memory recall tube and into the pit of forgetting

Gandalf didn’t die when he fell off the Bridge of Khazad Dum (I mean, he did die after his battle with the Balrog, but it wasn’t the fall that killed him and he came back anyway)

In fact, the only instances I can think of where a non-villain dies from falling are:

Mufasa

Gwen Stacy

Dumbeldore (and even then, he was already dead before the fall)

One key distinction between these two lists is that in the first list, the audience can’t see the ground as the character falls. In the second list, the audience does see the ground.

Why does this matter? Because if the audience can’t see the result of the fall, that’s a narrative opening to have the character survive. (And writers love a good narrative opening.)

Keep in mind that villains are exempt from this rule since audiences are often spared the violence of actually seeing a villain’s death, though we still see the reaction of protagonists to confirm the result. (Like Gaston or Frolo.)

Bottom line: I can’t see the ground in this card’s art, so I feel pretty safe assuming that Jace will survive.

The final Story Spotlight is here! Seems like Vraska and Jace stay at least a little friendly throughout the story this time. But what a literal cliffhanger to end on! Guess we’ll have to wait until the Rivals of Ixalan preview season to find out what happens. (Source)