Harry potter... i just, don't undertsnad

Nothing made sense in this movie, i don't understand how the world functions, how does the tree of power work? what makes someone's spells stronger than others? Would a 4 year old mage be able to hold off Voldermort's attack? There seemed to be some kind of emphasis on wands this movie, so is it all about wands? and wands choose their owners so its not a merit system but a full on hereditary one? And even though wands might be different, is there an actual practical difference? is there such a thing as a strong, fast, versatile wand? or is it binary? strong or weak?  And why does Voldermort want to personally kill Harry potter? its just some kid.  
 
I thot the initial setting of wizardry school to be awesome... but seems like the writer has no concept of good story telling. Characters don't develop, its so like childishly done its ridiculous, if we want to put a smart comment, we will have hermione say it, if we want a stupid one, ron, a serious one, Harry potter. 

I'm a wizard irl.

Wow that's a lot of questions. I've not seen the new movie yet, generally not a big fan of how much they differ from the books. 
Sounds like if you're that interested in how everything works, you'll want to read the books - they're really excellently written and as far as I remember, should cover everything you're asking. Does make it seem like the film doesn't do a very good job of explaining things though.

> I thot the initial setting of wizardry school to be awesome... but seems like the writer has no concept of good story telling.  
> I thot the initial setting of wizardry school to be awesome... 
> I thot 
> thot

Basic Summery 

• Evil Wizard wants Boy Dead Due to Prophecy 
• Boy Gets Instant Fame as a Baby
• Boy Just Wants A Real Family (as his family was killed by the evil Wizard)
• Boy goes on Quest to defeat Evil Wizard
• Snape Kills Dumbledore

Read the book.

" > I thot the initial setting of wizardry school to be awesome... but seems like the writer has no concept of good story telling.  > I thot the initial setting of wizardry school to be awesome... > I thot > thot "

Go on wikipedia or read one of the weird books that pick apart the universe. Or read the novels but they're pretty long

I got it, it was vrey direffernt form the book, but mdae prefect sesne to me.

I think the film was rushed, but it ended at a point that, as I recall was a little bit past the halfway point in the book, which means the last part will focus on the ending to the whole series.

" I thot the initial setting of wizardry school to be awesome... but seems like the writer has no concept of good story telling. "

" Read the book. "  

" Read the book. "    

The films are crap compared to the books, I wouldn't recommend watching the movies if you haven't read the book relevant to the movie

Well, all I know is that my dad thought the movie was really easy to follow, and he hasn't read any of the books (though I keep telling him to). (Also, I found the movie pretty easy to follow too, but I've read all the books). 

MAGIC.

"The films are crap compared to the books, I wouldn't recommend watching the movies if you haven't read the book relevant to the movie "

"MAGIC. "

I would just like to point out that despite the gratuitous use of cleavage in the later films, the Harry Potter demographic is still kids aged 11-15. Do not go in expecting literary genius.

Might want to read the book. Seriously, they're good.

Well done, you've just summed up why the Harry Potter franchise, along with all other fantasy magic fiction is fucking garbage. 
 
He's some magician, thats all I need to know about this kid's crap.

HP makes about much sense as video games, we're used to it

" HP makes about much sense as video games, we're used to it "

" @Kjellm87 said:

" HP makes about much sense as video games, we're used to it "

Yes, but video games are entertaining. You can't say the same thing about that nerdy wizard. "

" @gamefreak9 said:

" I thot the initial setting of wizardry school to be awesome... but seems like the writer has no concept of good story telling. "

You've only seen the movie, and obviously they've cut a hella load out for it to have a sensible running time, so saying the writer has no concept of good story telling is an invalid opinion. If you're that interested in it, maybe you should read the book. "

" @dudeglove said:

" Read the book. "  

 This. 
 
@DeeGee said:

" Read the book. "    

And this.  Don't expect to understand all the intricacies of the world if you're only paying attention to the watered-down version. As a movie-goer, you're not supposed to care about the exact way wands work, only that the Elder Wand allows its owner to perform powerful magic that is impossible without it. And really, you should be able to understand why Voldemort wants to kill Harry, even if you've only seen the movies. In this regard, you're just being oblivious. "

" Basic Summery 

• Evil Wizard wants Boy Dead Due to Prophecy 
• Boy Gets Instant Fame as a Baby
• Boy Just Wants A Real Family (as his family was killed by the evil Wizard)
• Boy goes on Quest to defeat Evil Wizard
• Snape Kills Dumbledore

"

" MAGIC. "

" Nothing made sense in this movie, i don't understand how the world functions, how does the tree of power work? what makes someone's spells stronger than others? Would a 4 year old mage be able to hold off Voldermort's attack? There seemed to be some kind of emphasis on wands this movie, so is it all about wands? and wands choose their owners so its not a merit system but a full on hereditary one? And even though wands might be different, is there an actual practical difference? is there such a thing as a strong, fast, versatile wand? or is it binary? strong or weak?  And why does Voldermort want to personally kill Harry potter? its just some kid.   I thot the initial setting of wizardry school to be awesome... but seems like the writer has no concept of good story telling. Characters don't develop, its so like childishly done its ridiculous, if we want to put a smart comment, we will have hermione say it, if we want a stupid one, ron, a serious one, Harry potter.  "

So you read the two worst books in the series before she became a good writer? Poor thing.

I read the first two, but the writing style just isn't my cup of tea... it just makes you stupid... "

" So you read the two worst books in the series before she became a good writer? Poor thing. "

" @Godot:  Yes, because forums are meant for correct scholarly English.... Way to find the right thing to dismantle... simpleton. "

" @DeeGee said:

" So you read the two worst books in the series before she became a good writer? Poor thing. "

I never heard that before... lots of people tell me that the first is their favorite. @Godot:  yes because forums are meant for correct scholarly english... way to find the right thing to dismantle... simpleton "

Well the films make no sense, and are crap compared to the books. Which are crap compared to say.. a receipt for Burger King. 

" @gamefreak9 said:

" @DeeGee said:

" So you read the two worst books in the series before she became a good writer? Poor thing. "

I never heard that before... lots of people tell me that the first is their favorite. @Godot:  yes because forums are meant for correct scholarly english... way to find the right thing to dismantle... simpleton "

Spelling the author's name correctly isn't scholarly English. And on the subject of calling me a simpleton, you're not exactly a bastion of knowledge yourself, are you? "

Thye don't really try to explain anything in the films, I guess they know their core audience are kids who have read and re-read the books countless times.

You know, as a huge Harry Potter fan (who, by the way, refuses to get into the marketing "HP" abbreviation BS) I generally agree with most of the criticisms.  The writing isn't top notch by any standards, but it certainly is passable.  The characters, however, do develop by about book 3.  The real problem that J.K. Rowling has is her constant use of a dues ex machina in ways that breaks the universe.  The heroes often find themselves on the ropes, so to say, and Rowling invents a new sub clause to the rules of the universe for them to escape.  And as other posters have pointed out, it often is Hermoine going, "Oh, didn't you know? On the second Sunday of each month, no dangerous magic can be used because of the old Muggle holiday! So therefore, Voldermort's spell was reflected back at him, and now we are safe." 
 
This is fine and all, I mean Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, all the classic fantasy series do this.  Harry Potter's weakness is it occasionally breaks the universe and continuity. 
 
Having said all that, the thing with Harry Potter is that the first book was a really beautiful and compelling magical world.  It was perfect childhood escapism, a world without parents (like college) plus you did the boring stuff, like chores, by waving a wand.  And studying meant making potions that turned people into frogs.  If you were like me, and that age during that time, it hit a really resounding note. 
 
Then the second one came out, and it was like, oh, there is more! Awesome.   At this point, Rowling wised up and got some help with the future ones.  Despite the fact that fans were still enamored with similar follow ups, critics were pointing out that the series needed something more than description of wizard sports.  So from 3 onward, there were darker elements, better adventures, and less school. 
 
The whole appeal, at least for me, is that the settings and events are, truly, magical.  They are interesting and imaginative, and the interactions with the "real" world and the "wizard" world are handled in a believable, yet slightly fantastic, manner.  And Rowling's writing has improved.  All of the characters, especially in the books, have depth.  No, we aren't talking about Dostovesky here, but we also are going well beyond Mickey Mouse.  
 
Now, as for the movies, I think they are getting heaps better as well.  Nonetheless, they all continue to struggle with capturing 700 pages of text in a two hour movie.  The last is, in my opinion, by far the best effort so far.

Read the books.  They're told better and make far more sense out of everything than the movies which skip big story events to show all the action sequences it can, giving them as many excuses as possible to use special effects.  Michael Bay would be proud, but it doesn't make for good storytelling.

You have to make a choice. 
Do you want to be entertained or enlightened?

" ms like their might be an answer here, whats the prophecy exactly? Who came up with it? does it just blatantly say, harry potter will beat voldermort? if thats the case maybe there is a motive other than insecure pride driven little girl voldemort.  "

How does the tree of power work?
Tree of power?

What makes someone's spells stronger than others?
Degree of practice or study they've put into it, combined with natural ability. She doesn't go much into it apart from that, because otherwise it wouldn't be, well, magic, and would get boring incredibly fast if the reader/audience gets pulled aside for a 10 minute exposition on how magic works.
 
Would a 4 year old mage be able to hold off Voldermort's attack?
Nope.
 
There seemed to be some kind of emphasis on wands this movie, so is it all about wands?
The emphasis on wands is that Harry and Voldemort's wands share the same core, so they can't kill each other with it. Turns out Voldemort can't kill Harry anyway, due to...coming in the next film.
 
and wands choose their owners so its not a merit system but a full on hereditary one?
No hereditary system going on, as wands aren't passed down from parent to child. Wands just choose people, s'all.
 
And even though wands might be different, is there an actual practical difference?
Some wands (like Harry's Mum's I think) are better at charms, some better at transfiguration. Again, explain too much and its not magic again.
 
is there such a thing as a strong, fast, versatile wand? or is it binary? strong or weak?
Wands are wands. Not binary, probably a continuum of strength; I think emphasis is placed on the spellcaster's ability moreso than the wands. Again, the books don't focus on it too much because it'd get terribly dull.
 
And why does Voldermort want to personally kill Harry potter? its just some kid. 
Revenge. Harry was the person that survived his attack, and greatly injured Voldemort in the process. It was in the first film, and referenced throughout all the others.
 
I thot the initial setting of wizardry school to be awesome... but seems like the writer has no concept of good story telling.
She has plenty. It's obviously not to your taste, is all.
 
Characters don't develop, its so like childishly done its ridiculous, if we want to put a smart comment, we will have hermione say it, if we want a stupid one, ron, a serious one, Harry potter.
Perhaps during the first two books/films, yes, but that was through the necessity of establishing characters so that development may occur. Throughout the series all the characters have matured significantly, to the point where they realise that their "wacky hijinks" were life-risking adventures. Hermione becomes a bit more savvy, less relying on book-smarts, Ron pulls his socks up and actually starts paying attention more in the later books, and Harry isn't incredibly hot-headed and impulsive. Just because it's subtle doesn't mean it's not there.

@EternalInfinity0 said:

" @dudeglove said:

" Read the book. "  

 This. 
 
@DeeGee said:

" Read the book. "    

And this.  Don't expect to understand all the intricacies of the world if you're only paying attention to the watered-down version. As a movie-goer, you're not supposed to care about the exact way wands work, only that the Elder Wand allows its owner to perform powerful magic that is impossible without it. And really, you should be able to understand why Voldemort wants to kill Harry, even if you've only seen the movies. In this regard, you're just being oblivious. "

I read the first two, but the writing style just isn't my cup of tea... it just makes you stupid... you can't go from reading books like "Nature of the book" and "beyond good and evil" to some crappy kids thing. On the fiction front, even the warcraft sunwell trilogy or w/e it was called was written better. The only thing rollin has going for her is the concept, and i'm trying to enjoy it, but it just doesn't seem to answer all the questions. I really enjoyed some of the movies, like the tri wizard cup one. But the 6th and 7th one... nothing is happening and they ruin the ambience by overdoing the whole no music scene trick... but that should not be used to much when the film is fantasy... They don't seem to like explain things, i mean why is Harry Potter and his friends, whom basically just graduated on par with like death eaters who have been killing people for like decades probably, its not like any given wizard is different from another so that you could explain "harry potter is a light wizard and death eaters are dark ones so light beats dark, but dark beats others, while others beat light".  That would already make more sense than a bunch of kids going against the master of all killers, not to mention that the griffindor sword can be wielded by anyone apparently so why didn't the minister of magic send like his top wizards to just go and kill Voldermorts heart.

The people that dislike the movies seem to be the one's that read the books and the ones that thinks it's Twilight with wizards.  After 3 the movies get really good and that is most people saying that and not people on the internet forums that just want to bash something that's popular and they don't like.  The books are better though but if you hadn't read the books or you can take movies as just movies then they are good-great, except for 1&2.

" Sure thing bro. I'll get light shedding.
 
@gamefreak9 said:

How does the tree of power work?
Tree of power?

What makes someone's spells stronger than others?
Degree of practice or study they've put into it, combined with natural ability. She doesn't go much into it apart from that, because otherwise it wouldn't be, well, magic, and would get boring incredibly fast if the reader/audience gets pulled aside for a 10 minute exposition on how magic works.
 
Would a 4 year old mage be able to hold off Voldermort's attack?
Nope.
 
There seemed to be some kind of emphasis on wands this movie, so is it all about wands?
The emphasis on wands is that Harry and Voldemort's wands share the same core, so they can't kill each other with it. Turns out Voldemort can't kill Harry anyway, due to...coming in the next film.
 
and wands choose their owners so its not a merit system but a full on hereditary one?
No hereditary system going on, as wands aren't passed down from parent to child. Wands just choose people, s'all.
 
And even though wands might be different, is there an actual practical difference?
Some wands (like Harry's Mum's I think) are better at charms, some better at transfiguration. Again, explain too much and its not magic again.
 
is there such a thing as a strong, fast, versatile wand? or is it binary? strong or weak?
Wands are wands. Not binary, probably a continuum of strength; I think emphasis is placed on the spellcaster's ability moreso than the wands. Again, the books don't focus on it too much because it'd get terribly dull.
 
And why does Voldermort want to personally kill Harry potter? its just some kid. 
Revenge. Harry was the person that survived his attack, and greatly injured Voldemort in the process. It was in the first film, and referenced throughout all the others.
 
I thot the initial setting of wizardry school to be awesome... but seems like the writer has no concept of good story telling.
She has plenty. It's obviously not to your taste, is all.
 
Characters don't develop, its so like childishly done its ridiculous, if we want to put a smart comment, we will have hermione say it, if we want a stupid one, ron, a serious one, Harry potter.
Perhaps during the first two books/films, yes, but that was through the necessity of establishing characters so that development may occur. Throughout the series all the characters have matured significantly, to the point where they realise that their "wacky hijinks" were life-risking adventures. Hermione becomes a bit more savvy, less relying on book-smarts, Ron pulls his socks up and actually starts paying attention more in the later books, and Harry isn't incredibly hot-headed and impulsive. Just because it's subtle doesn't mean it's not there.

Out of curiousity, what were the books that discussed "Nature of the book" and "beyond good and evil"? "

" @Godot said:

" Sure thing bro. I'll get light shedding.
 
@gamefreak9 said:

How does the tree of power work?
Tree of power?

What makes someone's spells stronger than others?
Degree of practice or study they've put into it, combined with natural ability. She doesn't go much into it apart from that, because otherwise it wouldn't be, well, magic, and would get boring incredibly fast if the reader/audience gets pulled aside for a 10 minute exposition on how magic works.
 
Would a 4 year old mage be able to hold off Voldermort's attack?
Nope.
 
There seemed to be some kind of emphasis on wands this movie, so is it all about wands?
The emphasis on wands is that Harry and Voldemort's wands share the same core, so they can't kill each other with it. Turns out Voldemort can't kill Harry anyway, due to...coming in the next film.
 
and wands choose their owners so its not a merit system but a full on hereditary one?
No hereditary system going on, as wands aren't passed down from parent to child. Wands just choose people, s'all.
 
And even though wands might be different, is there an actual practical difference?
Some wands (like Harry's Mum's I think) are better at charms, some better at transfiguration. Again, explain too much and its not magic again.
 
is there such a thing as a strong, fast, versatile wand? or is it binary? strong or weak?
Wands are wands. Not binary, probably a continuum of strength; I think emphasis is placed on the spellcaster's ability moreso than the wands. Again, the books don't focus on it too much because it'd get terribly dull.
 
And why does Voldermort want to personally kill Harry potter? its just some kid. 
Revenge. Harry was the person that survived his attack, and greatly injured Voldemort in the process. It was in the first film, and referenced throughout all the others.
 
I thot the initial setting of wizardry school to be awesome... but seems like the writer has no concept of good story telling.
She has plenty. It's obviously not to your taste, is all.
 
Characters don't develop, its so like childishly done its ridiculous, if we want to put a smart comment, we will have hermione say it, if we want a stupid one, ron, a serious one, Harry potter.
Perhaps during the first two books/films, yes, but that was through the necessity of establishing characters so that development may occur. Throughout the series all the characters have matured significantly, to the point where they realise that their "wacky hijinks" were life-risking adventures. Hermione becomes a bit more savvy, less relying on book-smarts, Ron pulls his socks up and actually starts paying attention more in the later books, and Harry isn't incredibly hot-headed and impulsive. Just because it's subtle doesn't mean it's not there.

Out of curiousity, what were the books that discussed "Nature of the book" and "beyond good and evil"? "

Wow great, answer man.  I think that answers most of it, although basically it seems like Voldemort wants revenge on a baby because his mother protected him?   Well i just can't really return to fiction writing style after going into other types of books, Nature of the book discusses the printing press revolution, and denies it being so but instead gives emphasis on the human interaction part of it as being the driving force(its pretty great). And Beyond good and Evil is  Nietzshe(philosopher) first book, i don't think he actually expanded the philosophy that much, sort of linear, but his writing style is off the charts, one of the most entertaining books i have ever read.  "

The books are a million times better than the movies.

The problem with the movies is that they stick too religiously to the novels, to the detriment of their quality as stand alone films. That is why The Prisoner of Azkaban is by far the best film in the series, because they hired a director who actually had his own conception of how he wanted to translate the book into film and who wasn't afraid to cut things from the story. I wish they had stuck with Alfonso Cuaron. Azkaban stands on its own merits as a great film that does not require of the audience any prior knowledge of the novels.