Harry Potter and why its world building is so boring? - Avada Kedavra vs M16

That was a continuity mistake, I think the correct formula is 1990 + book number for the ~"before Christmas" section of each book, and 1991 + book number for the ~"after Christmas" section. Maybe that's off, but there's no way an early book was actually supposed to be set in 1995 in the "real continuity" (A.K.A. after J.K. started planning stuff out in a reasonable manner)
if they're going to retcon something they should take out the "knickerbocker glory" that Dudley wanted
I looked it up so I know it's not as bad as it sounds but still, I don't want to think about him and knickers or glory anythings at the same time
 
Speaking as a Bong, it always felt like a really dated portrayal of Britain. Less like the 90s, more like the 50s.
Because your main exposure to the "Muggle World" is the Dursleys who are meant to be stereotypes of upper middle class Tory voters which I guess in Britain has just as many connotations of "the 1950s rule" as it does with their American equivalent.

The movies really amped it up though, Britain really has a vintage look in those. Like I don't recall the books describing their house and clothing as straight out of the 50s like it was in the movies. They were just kind of stuffy people who wanted to join the real upper class. Granted, I think it added a bit to the charm of the early movies.
 
Because your main exposure to the "Muggle World" is the Dursleys who are meant to be stereotypes of upper middle class Tory voters which I guess in Britain has just as many connotations of "the 1950s rule" as it does with their American equivalent.

The movies really amped it up though, Britain really has a vintage look in those. Like I don't recall the books describing their house and clothing as straight out of the 50s like it was in the movies. They were just kind of stuffy people who wanted to join the real upper class. Granted, I think it added a bit to the charm of the early movies.
I think a lot of it is that that's what American audiences think Britain looks like. I think Americans in general have quite a dated idea of the British experience.
 
The movies really amped it up though, Britain really has a vintage look in those. Like I don't recall the books describing their house and clothing as straight out of the 50s like it was in the movies. They were just kind of stuffy people who wanted to join the real upper class. Granted, I think it added a bit to the charm of the early movies.
Because that's what the foreign market wants. When we look at a Japanese movie, we want what matches our mental image of Japan - rainy and beautiful mountains, rainy and neon-lit cities, fast streamlined cars and motorbikes (in the rain). When we watch a Chinese movie we want to see little inward-curving roofs and carved stone dog-lion things resting a paw on a ball. When we watch a movie set in Africa, we want to see shanties and cluttered market streets. Even if that "Africa" is the hyper-technologically advanced Wakanda it must have wooden market stalls or children playing football barefoot. And if yanks watch a movie set in Britain they want to see cramped London streets and coal-burning trains and the Irish have to all wear green and have a giant dancing leprechaun.

Only native people want their country portrayed realistically (and not even then). Foreigners always want the country of their imagination or it wont do well at the box-office.

EDIT: @Miriam Margoyles apparated in front of my post by minutes while I was writing it!
 
I asked this question before, but I'll ask it again. Is Newt Scamander obsessively autistic?
Nah, I don't think he is... He's more of the Steve Irwin of the Wizarding World (minus the stingray injury, of course), just wanting to educate wizards about magical creatures and all that jazz...

Of course, I could be complete wrong in my view of this, but eh, not the worst thing I've ever been wrong about...
 
Because that's what the foreign market wants. When we look at a Japanese movie, we want what matches our mental image of Japan - rainy and beautiful mountains, rainy and neon-lit cities, fast streamlined cars and motorbikes (in the rain). When we watch a Chinese movie we want to see little inward-curving roofs and carved stone dog-lion things resting a paw on a ball. When we watch a movie set in Africa, we want to see shanties and cluttered market streets. Even if that "Africa" is the hyper-technologically advanced Wakanda it must have wooden market stalls or children playing football barefoot. And if yanks watch a movie set in Britain they want to see cramped London streets and coal-burning trains and the Irish have to all wear green and have a giant dancing leprechaun.

Only native people want their country portrayed realistically (and not even then). Foreigners always want the country of their imagination or it wont do well at the box-office.

EDIT: @Miriam Margoyles apparated in front of my post by minutes while I was writing it!
Happens in real life too, not just with media representation. The Japanese are infamous for going into fugues of depression any time they visit Paris and realize it's nothing like they expected it to be, full of obnoxious Parisans, litter, and crime.

And apparently it's even worse with Chinese tourists to Paris, who usually get outraged at the crime and how dirty things are compared to how Paris is idealized in Chinese media, and call the Paris police to complain constantly.

Nobody wants to see foreign countries as they realistically are, especially tourists.
 
I think a lot of it is that that's what American audiences think Britain looks like. I think Americans in general have quite a dated idea of the British experience.
shit looked like the 40s when I was there in the early 90s except for some bullshit Bell Labs exhibit or whoever it was or a few other odds and ends that were at least 80s
also there were some posters in the streets for genesi-Mega Drive games, one was 7up Spot stomping on a hedgehog to sell Cool Spot which I dunno if "FUCK SONIC" is the good messaging for a genesis game but I'm a humble burger what do I know
 
if they're going to retcon something they should take out the "knickerbocker glory" that Dudley wanted
I looked it up so I know it's not as bad as it sounds but still, I don't want to think about him and knickers or glory anythings at the same time
Knickerbockers are an outdated form of trouser for rich boys that some posh schools still use as a uniform, so it's basically a coded way of saying 'extra large ice cream for rich spoiled fancy boys'. Like Eton Mess. It's characterising Dudley before we find out about Smeltings or whatever the muggle public school is.

I think a good chunk of the worldbuilding is allegorical to real world shit and isn't supposed to be internally consistent. Hogwarts is supposed to be a parody of Enid Blyton / Mallory Towers type literature which is why I like the 50s-70s vibe of the first film and I think everything JKR has done to try and make it logically consistent since then has been a mistake. She should have never tried to give it an accurate timeline; just accept that some of it is referencing shit from the 50s, some from the 80s, some from the present day, etc. Then gummed together as needed for plot. If it's entertaining it does it's job, if you get the joke/reference that's a plus.
 
I read Harry Potter when I was a kid so my memory may not be accurate but in retrospect the timeline of the first wizarding war is hilarious. My impression from the books was that when Harry's parents were in school everything was peachy keen and shit went south after they left school and joined Dumbledore's Army, but ultimately it's revealed they died when they were like 21. So does that mean Voldemort gathered an army, rose to power, did all the heinous shit he supposedly did, and was defeated in four years? I guess it's plausible but it seems like J. K. never really thought out the timeline of Voldemort's initial rise at all.
 
I read Harry Potter when I was a kid so my memory may not be accurate but in retrospect the timeline of the first wizarding war is hilarious. My impression from the books was that when Harry's parents were in school everything was peachy keen and shit went south after they left school and joined Dumbledore's Army, but ultimately it's revealed they died when they were like 21. So does that mean Voldemort gathered an army, rose to power, did all the heinous shit he supposedly did, and was defeated in four years? I guess it's plausible but it seems like J. K. never really thought out the timeline of Voldemort's initial rise at all.
Snape was the same year as the marauders, Voldemort was older - not clear how much by. So he spent most of his time at hogwarts, which is like the entire wizarding community, building up the death eaters who are basically the ss/black/brownshirts, there's probably a few years after he leaves hogwarts but the marauders haven't yet where he's infiltrating the ministry or whatever it is he's supposed to have done, and then the actual takeover / open power grab the year they leave school. The wizarding community is tiny; WW2 lasted four years.
 
"You shouldn't be so discriminatory. Don't call them names! Equality! Tolerance! Everybody is the same!"

"Oh, um, Muggles. They're so odd, with their Muggly ways and Muggly wares. I mean, I don't hate them. Goodness, no! But I can't help but find them to be quite odd and daft. It's really a pity that they don't have magic."
 
Because the books are written by a retarded, radical feminist cunt who stumbled upon success by writing an entitlement-fantasy for moronic children who weren't spanked enough.

It really is a gross injustice to the world that the franchise of Harry Potter became as successful as it did. I can only imagine that the many authors around the world who are actually talented are rightfully salty about being passed up in favor of a dumb hack like ms. Rowling.
 
Back