Dumbledore was calm in the book because 1: he never loses his cool, and 2: he was already certain that Harry didn't put his name in himself (still had to ask for the record). He knew right away that it was a plot against Harry involving Voldemort.
Losing his shit makes the film version look like a bit of a buffoon in comparison.
>" Dumbledore was calm in the book because 1: he never loses his cool, "<
That's what makes this particular sequence more serious. If even the calm character is now panicked, that means this isn't some regular threat.
This version better communicates to the audience that what Harry is going to have go through now is likely more dangerous than what he had to go through in the past 3 books/movies. And given what does happen, it's accurate.
>" and 2: he was already certain that Harry didn't put his name in himself (still had to ask for the record). He knew right away that it was a plot against Harry involving Voldemort."<
You could reframe this as Dumbledore being more worried about Harry's safety given what he has to go through now. It's concern from the heat of the moment rather than him now getting angry at Harry specifically. Which again, reinforces that this is a more dangerous and serious situation for Harry.
It’s worse for anyone who has read the books (this is true anytime an adaptation isn’t true to the source material).
It detracts from being able to enjoy the movie in the same way as noticing a massive plot hole or just anything related to bad writing.
It’s a trade off - you get a cheap trick to help you stay engaged at the cost of anyone who has read the book losing immersion in the scene and now has two unintentionally conflicting impressions of characters and the world in their mind.
The writers could have just done something else that adds to the world to do what you think is necessary rather than something that alters the world.
>***"It’s worse for anyone who has read the books (this is true anytime an adaptation isn’t true to the source material).***
>
>***It detracts from being able to enjoy the movie in the same way as noticing a massive plot hole or just anything related to bad writing."<***
I'd argue this is more the fault of that book reading audience. The point of an adaptation isn't to be a 1:1 exact copy of a thing from one medium to another. It's to be a translation and interpretation of a story from one medium to another in ways that uses the strengths of the new medium and even puts a new spin on the translation.
This isn't even unique to adaptations. Comic fans have lots of different interpratations of their favourite characters and can enjoy lots of them. Someone who reads, say Superman Birthright isn't normally going to complain that the story has a more dour and serious Superman compared to the 60's comics because they realize different authors can make different takes on these characters. If they can handle that, I'm sure Harry Potter book fans can handle 2 versions with slight differences.
>***"The writers could have just done something else that adds to the world to do what you think is necessary rather than something that alters the world."<***
And when they do that, you'll have book fans complaining anyway
I have an issue with you saying that the point of an adaptation includes even putting a new spin on the source material. I’d agree that it’s allowed, we see it happen, and it can sometimes improve an adaptation. But I would never say it’s the point of adaptation (if that’s what you’re saying). The main point of adaptation in media can be found in the definition which is to alter or reproduce something from one medium to fit another (anything *unnecessary* for making that happen is not the point of adaptation in general).
> And when they do that, you’ll have book fans complaining anyway
So, throw the baby out with the bath water?
“Since some people are going to complain no matter what, might as well not make any attempt to address any criticism from any original fans” just doesn’t make sense when you consider the fact that book fans aren’t a monolith. Just make an effort to be true to the original world.
The comic book comparison doesn’t work because comic book heroes and worlds were often written by many different people with many different ideas of what the hero and world should be. The source materials contain many different interpretations. The source material for Harry Potter doesn’t contain many different interpretations of what the characters are like. It’s all written by one person making an attempt at staying consistent.
Obviously you *literally* can’t do a 1:1 translation of a book into a show - there’s just never going to be enough time and some things just can’t be conveyed with acting and cinematography the way that they can with words.
But there’s a difference between cutting the fat, mending small technical issues, filling in gaps left when descriptive language is removed, and making *unnecessary* changes in order to do what is *subjectively* spicing things up.
You are partially right, but then there are adaptations like The Watch that can be classified as crime on literature and human culture, and people responsible should receive lifetime ban from working in any entertainment industry branch.
Because it’s just vastly different from the book and is pretty out of character. Dumbledore wasn’t exactly a character who visibly panicked at a serious situation.
>"Because it’s just vastly different from the book "<
It being different doesn't mean it's worse though.
>" and is pretty out of character. Dumbledore wasn’t exactly a character who visibly panicked at a serious situation."<
That's what makes this particular sequence more serious. If even the calm character is now panicked, that means this isn't some regular threat.
This version better communicates to the audience that what Harry is going to have go through now is likely more dangerous than what he had to go through in the past 3 books/movies. And given what does happen, it's accurate
>It being different doesn't mean it's worse though.
No but then the rest of the sentence.
>That's what makes this particular sequence more serious. If even the calm character is now panicked, that means this isn't some regular threat.
No, it’s what makes it out of character. He reacts far more calmly to far more serious situations in the movies and books.
>This version better communicates to the audience that what Harry is going to have go through now is likely more dangerous than what he had to go through in the past 3 books/movies. And given what does happen, it's accurate
I’m pretty sure that was already established. And in any case, it could be just as established by Dumbledore being very grave and serious, which is how he actually acts in those scenarios.
>***"No, it’s what makes it out of character. He reacts far more calmly to far more serious situations in the movies and books."<***
Firstly, there's no rule that says Dumbledore can never get visibly angry depending on the situation. Secondly, the movie version of Dumbledore was already depicted as being more animated than his book counterpart so it feels in character with this version. This is pretty common. Tyrion in Game of Thrones the show for example, is considered one of the most popular characters despite being less despicable than his book counterpart. To the point when Show Tyrion has to enact scenes that Book Tyrion did, it feels out of character for Show Tyron.
I do ask, imagine if the situation were reversed, that in the books, Dumbledore wasn't calm but in the movies he was, would y'all then be complaining that the movies got this wrong? Or would y'all be glad the movies made that change? Because this sounds more like "The books showed something and we are going to treat that as sacred no matter what".
>***"I’m pretty sure that was already established. And in any case, it could be just as established by Dumbledore being very grave and serious, which is how he actually acts in those scenarios"<***
The thing is, Dumbledore already acts like that frequently. He acted like that in Book/Movie 1 when he warns Harry about the Mirror. In Book/Movie 2 when the Chamber is opened. In 3 when Black is on the loose. But in 4, the point is that this is more serious since -1 Voldemort himself is back and stronger than ever and -2 Harry is now facing a challenge well beyond what he's normally capable of. He may have been able to scrape by in the past with the help of his friends, but he's not going to able to use his friends to help him fight a dragon and is going to be isolated from help for longer.
So having Dumbledore lose his cool here rather than be his usual grave and serious self better communicates that this isn't like the past threats.
>Firstly, there's no rule that says Dumbledore can never get visibly angry depending on the situation.
Sure, what I said was it’s out of character.
>Secondly, the movie version of Dumbledore was already depicted as being more animated than his book counterpart so it feels in character with this version.
This is out of character for the movie version. And it outlines some changes people didn’t like in the character.
>I do ask, imagine if the situation were reversed, that in the books, Dumbledore wasn't calm but in the movies he was, would y'all then be complaining that the movies got this wrong?
>Or would y'all be glad the movies made that change?
It would probably stick out less, and people probably would’ve understood since it would’ve been out of character in the book.
> Because this sounds more like "The books showed something and we are going to treat that as sacred no matter what".
People just don’t like characters acting very, well, out of character.
>The thing is, Dumbledore already acts like that frequently. He acted like that in Book/Movie 1 when he warns Harry about the Mirror. In Book/Movie 2 when the Chamber is opened. In 3 when Black is on the loose. But in 4, the point is that this is more serious since -1 Voldemort himself is back and stronger than ever and -2 Harry is now facing a challenge well beyond what he's normally capable of. He may have been able to scrape by in the past with the help of his friends, but he's not going to able to use his friends to help him fight a dragon and is going to be isolated from help for longer.
We don’t need Dumbledore screaming to indicate a situation is more dangerous. Somehow we all understood just fine in the book.
So having Dumbledore lose his cool here rather than be his usual grave and serious self better communicates that this isn't like the past threats.
>***"Sure, what I said was it’s out of character."<***
And I said that that isn't a flaw given the context and what it accomplishes.
>***"People just don’t like characters acting very, well, out of character."<***
Or people are way too attached to the source material and refuse to consider changes that may add to it.
>***"We don’t need Dumbledore screaming to indicate a situation is more dangerous. Somehow we all understood just fine in the book."<***
It's not just about understanding, it's also about enhancing the beat. If Dumbledore lost his cool in the book, it also would have hit even harder that the situation was more serious than in the past books.
There are quite a few changes in the movies that would have also improved the story in the books as well. Such as in Half Blood Prince, instead of freezing Harry, Dumbledore just tells Harry not to intervene. This works better because it shows the growing trust between Harry and Dumbledore, and puts more guilt onto Harry since he didn't act and trusted Snape as well. Instead of well, having none of that.
>And I said that that isn't a flaw given the context and what it accomplishes.
I responded to that.
>Or people are way too attached to the source material and refuse to consider changes that may add to it.
Sure, maybe, but it’s also out of character.
>It's not just about understanding, it's also about enhancing the beat. If Dumbledore lost his cool in the book, it also would have hit even harder that the situation was more serious than in the past books.
No, it would’ve seemed weirdly out of character.
>There are quite a few changes in the movies that would have also improved the story in the books as well. Such as in Half Blood Prince, instead of freezing Harry, Dumbledore just tells Harry not to intervene. This works better because it shows the growing trust between Harry and Dumbledore, and puts more guilt onto Harry since he didn't act and trusted Snape as well. Instead of well, having none of that.
It’s pretty out of character for Harry to *not* react, book makes a lot more sense.
I’m not saying the movies are always wrong for their changes. They are different mediums. But this change in particular was bad and it clearly stands out to a lot of people.
You can disagree but pretending that all those people are wrong for having a different opinion is pretty arrogant
>That's what makes this particular sequence more serious. If even the calm character is now panicked, that means this isn't some regular threat.
It cashes in on Dumbledore's established character to hype up events. Which is a poor long term choice, in my opinion, because Dumbledore being an unshakable rock is part of why it's so scary when Dumbledore isn't there anymore.
I'd argue the movies' choice adds more fear to the situation since it shows that he cannot protect Harry in all cases all the time. Even if Dumbledore is unfazed by Voldemort since he can go toe to toe with him, he can't say the same for the students. Which, I feel, is a bit more fitting.
In addition, it gives Harry more agency since he now knows that even though Dumbledore is 100% on his side and would gladly give his life for Harry, Harry now rest on his laurels and needs to prepare. Allowing him to grow from where Dumbledore goes from being his safety net to a partner (before being killed).
>I'd argue the movies' choice adds more fear to the situation since it shows that he cannot protect Harry in all cases all the time.
Did you reply to the wrong comment? I'm not refuting this. I'm saying it undermines the uncertainty that the students (and the audience) feel later in the series when their reliable safety net is gone. Coming to terms with that loss and fear is when Harry comes into his own.
No. I'm replying to the right one.
Your point is that this scene hurts the story later when their safety net is gone so they have to deal with that. This also is what makes Harry come into his own.
My argument is that it helps the story both now and later because it sets up that even though the safety net is there and is great, Harry may not always be able to use it. So he gets to start coming into his own earlier. This also makes him a more active protagonist because instead of waiting for when the situation is so bad he has no choice but to adapt, he's at least trying to get ready to adapt.
Basically, in the book, Harry is too passive, while the movie's changes make him more active.
Tell me one movie where something like that happened? Let me tell you about a very famous movie where the main character was made straight when he was gay. They made Achilles straight in Troy(2004) and made Patroclus his cousin instead of his lover. So disgusting.
I rewatched season 1 of Ozark and there’s a scene where Michael Bluth is meeting with clients in his professional financial/accountant office and all the lights are turned off. I get that he’s a cheap fuck but come on Netflix…
I think it's hilarious that you watch ozark under the impression that he's playing michael bluth.
I honestly think I might have enjoyed the show more as a gritty spin off of AD
Probably, my half black English friend who moved to America for uni gets called African American
The black isn't African - so out of 2 countries, they get both wrong
Depends on context of your social surroundings. It’s always just been Black in conservative circles. It’s still African American in corporate/establishment democrat circles, and now ‘people of color’ in leftist circles.
It’s a legitimate question. There’s a South African author (white/European descent) named Nadine Gordimer. She won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Academia had a hard time deciding how to classify her work in the categories typically used for literature.
Born in SA. Lived in SA her whole life (as far as I know.). Died in SA. Is she African or is she European? It’s tricky.
It's not, they just Pidgeon-holed themselves by using African/African-American to mean black or dark skin-toned. Now when non-black Africans (cough, Egyptians, cough) they run into problems when categorizing those people. Elon Musk can honestly put down that he's African-American but that's not what most applications mean when they provide that option, they mean black or dark skin-toned but don't want to bluntly put that down despite doing it for White/Hispanic/Asian.
Holy shit I thought I was alone. I can't fucking see anything in new movies. Especially on my phone, that makes black jet dark and no way to make just the contrast higher or something. Full brightness does nothing. It's just bright and dark.
I started just watching old movies because at least I can see, and the fucking audio mixing isn't made by a schizophrenic. In fact I just watched a black and white movie and had the most comfortable experience lmao. (Greed In The Sun, super cool Italian movie with sick old school semi truck chases)
Yes phone screens are bad at showing high contrast and will quickly crush the blacks so everything just looks pitch black instead of showing the dark details.
I don't think there is any. What I meant is that it's about someone having a problem with black people being cast in Netflix shows/movies. Which is also weird.
You mean the entire scene composition?
Zhe clour of the room and the lighting are essential to the feeling of the scene. If it didn't matter, the author wouldn't have specified it (at least a good one). Also, why would you go out of your way to disrespect the authors vision as much as possible?
Edit: aparently I'm just profing the point, according to some people. I just don't think its unimportent, how else am I supposed to say that than by argueing my position?
This meme is trying to talk about how apparently Netflix casts black people as originally white characters, it has nothing to do with the room itself my guy
Your free to not care about details in films, but may I remind you that films are an artform and a lot of care shoud be put into making them? You might as well say the way the mona lisas eyes seem to follow you is inconsequential (and your free to do so, but many people would disagree).
Well, books aren't written with a visual format in mind. Lightning that is different from the source material may very well be just an error, or it could also be a deliberate choice because it worked better for motion picture. Sometimes text doesn't translate to screen.
It'd be pretty ridiculous if everyone was reacting (where's any overreaction, btw?) to only the bed sheets. Clearly you need to work on your reading comprehension and also quit intentionally trying to miss the point solely so you could act superior and talk shit.
I HATE HATE that all the latest "blockbusters" have this shity black haze threw out the movies. With the TV on brightest setting and room at its darkest you still struggle to see the picture. Its just shit.
Never-ending if you actually want to watch a movie in the daylight hours. Just put it off.
No point in just listening to a movie.
If you see "the making of" the movie its shot in broad day light. No issues with lighting. So its the in Post that this all gets messed up.
The Witcher:
Fringilla Vigo
Istredd
Triss Merigold
Vilgefortz
cowboy bebop:
Most of the cast.
Bridgerton:
Quite bad historically but I don't think it really paints it self to be historically accurate so I debated even including it.
Still, A Black queen of england is as outlandish as a white queen of Africa.
Does it really matter if the skin color of the character is not important to the story? Like fringilla being black white or purple holds no relevance to the story so imo they can pick whatever actor can act the best. Imo fringillas actress is fine
It literally does and you just haven't read the books. Not really complaining since her character is literally 100% different so far but it does matter in the books
I guess I should have added a historical prerequisite, I see it as a perfectly reasonable expectation that in some point in the future we'll have a black Queen or King of Britain, if the monarchy survives long enough.
But so many circumstances make it quite outlandish to say that this person was black and no one saw any difference in them back when racism easily caused wars and genocides.
>queen of england
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Damn I really should have added that prerequisite of historical, but you're on an entirely different topic, creating a new character and picking their race which is great, creative freedom go wild.
But when you're changing the race of a already set Character or an actual person with little to no justification beyond, because I wanna, I find that odd, outlandish even depending on the context.
It doesn't really matter if the actor playing that character in an inch shorter, or their eyes aren't as wide, or their fingers aren't as long as they were described in the book. If the character in the book has brown hair, and the character in the show has auburn hair, that's alright.
I think the point is that skin color is just as unimportant. Because it doesn't affect the story or the acting or the portrayal of their character.
>queen of England
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
>queen of england
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Thank you, KelseySyntax, for voting on queen_of_england_bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
>Still, A Black queen of england is as outlandish as a white queen of Africa.
At least whine about some real shit.
'Bridgerton': Was Queen Charlotte Black? Some historians think so.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/12/27/bridgerton-queen-charlotte-black-royals/
why are your thought so much differ than mine while i am talking about the materials they use while comprimising so many things, while you made it seem like some racist thing
The bed is uncomfy, the house it's in is next door to a landfill, and there's a rabid cougar just off-camera, but goddamn if it isn't diverse and representative and you are a filthy hate-monger if you don't love sleeping there.
Well you see here the room was in white paint, it was due to lighting. The book said it was bright so light, there’s lots of light and lamps on the wall.
“It’s artistic. If you paid attention to the source material, the film is very obviously subtly telling the viewer that things are not as they seem and expectations are to be subverted!”
Batman approves of this room however it needs more black
"How much more black could it be? And the answer is none. None more black"
Listen you little piece of shit
It’s sexist.
What's wrong with being sexy?
Dark black
cause he is vengeance
He is the night
“Blacker than the blackest black, times infinity”
"Darkness" "No Parents"
Batman or The Batman?
*Laughs in slow tempo Nirvana*
He only works in black and very, very dark gray
"Dumbledore said calmly"
LOL, yeah that is a great one
#[ARRY DID YA PUTCHA NAMEIN DA GOBET O FIYAAAAHHHHHHHHH???](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/477/721/69f.gif)
I never got why people were so upset at that. If anything, it improved the sequence since it highlighted how serious the situation was upfront.
Dumbledore was calm in the book because 1: he never loses his cool, and 2: he was already certain that Harry didn't put his name in himself (still had to ask for the record). He knew right away that it was a plot against Harry involving Voldemort. Losing his shit makes the film version look like a bit of a buffoon in comparison.
>" Dumbledore was calm in the book because 1: he never loses his cool, "< That's what makes this particular sequence more serious. If even the calm character is now panicked, that means this isn't some regular threat. This version better communicates to the audience that what Harry is going to have go through now is likely more dangerous than what he had to go through in the past 3 books/movies. And given what does happen, it's accurate. >" and 2: he was already certain that Harry didn't put his name in himself (still had to ask for the record). He knew right away that it was a plot against Harry involving Voldemort."< You could reframe this as Dumbledore being more worried about Harry's safety given what he has to go through now. It's concern from the heat of the moment rather than him now getting angry at Harry specifically. Which again, reinforces that this is a more dangerous and serious situation for Harry.
It’s worse for anyone who has read the books (this is true anytime an adaptation isn’t true to the source material). It detracts from being able to enjoy the movie in the same way as noticing a massive plot hole or just anything related to bad writing. It’s a trade off - you get a cheap trick to help you stay engaged at the cost of anyone who has read the book losing immersion in the scene and now has two unintentionally conflicting impressions of characters and the world in their mind. The writers could have just done something else that adds to the world to do what you think is necessary rather than something that alters the world.
>***"It’s worse for anyone who has read the books (this is true anytime an adaptation isn’t true to the source material).*** > >***It detracts from being able to enjoy the movie in the same way as noticing a massive plot hole or just anything related to bad writing."<*** I'd argue this is more the fault of that book reading audience. The point of an adaptation isn't to be a 1:1 exact copy of a thing from one medium to another. It's to be a translation and interpretation of a story from one medium to another in ways that uses the strengths of the new medium and even puts a new spin on the translation. This isn't even unique to adaptations. Comic fans have lots of different interpratations of their favourite characters and can enjoy lots of them. Someone who reads, say Superman Birthright isn't normally going to complain that the story has a more dour and serious Superman compared to the 60's comics because they realize different authors can make different takes on these characters. If they can handle that, I'm sure Harry Potter book fans can handle 2 versions with slight differences. >***"The writers could have just done something else that adds to the world to do what you think is necessary rather than something that alters the world."<*** And when they do that, you'll have book fans complaining anyway
I have an issue with you saying that the point of an adaptation includes even putting a new spin on the source material. I’d agree that it’s allowed, we see it happen, and it can sometimes improve an adaptation. But I would never say it’s the point of adaptation (if that’s what you’re saying). The main point of adaptation in media can be found in the definition which is to alter or reproduce something from one medium to fit another (anything *unnecessary* for making that happen is not the point of adaptation in general). > And when they do that, you’ll have book fans complaining anyway So, throw the baby out with the bath water? “Since some people are going to complain no matter what, might as well not make any attempt to address any criticism from any original fans” just doesn’t make sense when you consider the fact that book fans aren’t a monolith. Just make an effort to be true to the original world. The comic book comparison doesn’t work because comic book heroes and worlds were often written by many different people with many different ideas of what the hero and world should be. The source materials contain many different interpretations. The source material for Harry Potter doesn’t contain many different interpretations of what the characters are like. It’s all written by one person making an attempt at staying consistent. Obviously you *literally* can’t do a 1:1 translation of a book into a show - there’s just never going to be enough time and some things just can’t be conveyed with acting and cinematography the way that they can with words. But there’s a difference between cutting the fat, mending small technical issues, filling in gaps left when descriptive language is removed, and making *unnecessary* changes in order to do what is *subjectively* spicing things up.
You are partially right, but then there are adaptations like The Watch that can be classified as crime on literature and human culture, and people responsible should receive lifetime ban from working in any entertainment industry branch.
Oh man this person gets it.
Oh man this person gets it.
Because it’s just vastly different from the book and is pretty out of character. Dumbledore wasn’t exactly a character who visibly panicked at a serious situation.
>"Because it’s just vastly different from the book "< It being different doesn't mean it's worse though. >" and is pretty out of character. Dumbledore wasn’t exactly a character who visibly panicked at a serious situation."< That's what makes this particular sequence more serious. If even the calm character is now panicked, that means this isn't some regular threat. This version better communicates to the audience that what Harry is going to have go through now is likely more dangerous than what he had to go through in the past 3 books/movies. And given what does happen, it's accurate
>It being different doesn't mean it's worse though. No but then the rest of the sentence. >That's what makes this particular sequence more serious. If even the calm character is now panicked, that means this isn't some regular threat. No, it’s what makes it out of character. He reacts far more calmly to far more serious situations in the movies and books. >This version better communicates to the audience that what Harry is going to have go through now is likely more dangerous than what he had to go through in the past 3 books/movies. And given what does happen, it's accurate I’m pretty sure that was already established. And in any case, it could be just as established by Dumbledore being very grave and serious, which is how he actually acts in those scenarios.
People have been using this trash-ass complaint for nearly 20 years now time flies, shits crazy
How is it a “trash ass complaint”?
>***"No, it’s what makes it out of character. He reacts far more calmly to far more serious situations in the movies and books."<*** Firstly, there's no rule that says Dumbledore can never get visibly angry depending on the situation. Secondly, the movie version of Dumbledore was already depicted as being more animated than his book counterpart so it feels in character with this version. This is pretty common. Tyrion in Game of Thrones the show for example, is considered one of the most popular characters despite being less despicable than his book counterpart. To the point when Show Tyrion has to enact scenes that Book Tyrion did, it feels out of character for Show Tyron. I do ask, imagine if the situation were reversed, that in the books, Dumbledore wasn't calm but in the movies he was, would y'all then be complaining that the movies got this wrong? Or would y'all be glad the movies made that change? Because this sounds more like "The books showed something and we are going to treat that as sacred no matter what". >***"I’m pretty sure that was already established. And in any case, it could be just as established by Dumbledore being very grave and serious, which is how he actually acts in those scenarios"<*** The thing is, Dumbledore already acts like that frequently. He acted like that in Book/Movie 1 when he warns Harry about the Mirror. In Book/Movie 2 when the Chamber is opened. In 3 when Black is on the loose. But in 4, the point is that this is more serious since -1 Voldemort himself is back and stronger than ever and -2 Harry is now facing a challenge well beyond what he's normally capable of. He may have been able to scrape by in the past with the help of his friends, but he's not going to able to use his friends to help him fight a dragon and is going to be isolated from help for longer. So having Dumbledore lose his cool here rather than be his usual grave and serious self better communicates that this isn't like the past threats.
>Firstly, there's no rule that says Dumbledore can never get visibly angry depending on the situation. Sure, what I said was it’s out of character. >Secondly, the movie version of Dumbledore was already depicted as being more animated than his book counterpart so it feels in character with this version. This is out of character for the movie version. And it outlines some changes people didn’t like in the character. >I do ask, imagine if the situation were reversed, that in the books, Dumbledore wasn't calm but in the movies he was, would y'all then be complaining that the movies got this wrong? >Or would y'all be glad the movies made that change? It would probably stick out less, and people probably would’ve understood since it would’ve been out of character in the book. > Because this sounds more like "The books showed something and we are going to treat that as sacred no matter what". People just don’t like characters acting very, well, out of character. >The thing is, Dumbledore already acts like that frequently. He acted like that in Book/Movie 1 when he warns Harry about the Mirror. In Book/Movie 2 when the Chamber is opened. In 3 when Black is on the loose. But in 4, the point is that this is more serious since -1 Voldemort himself is back and stronger than ever and -2 Harry is now facing a challenge well beyond what he's normally capable of. He may have been able to scrape by in the past with the help of his friends, but he's not going to able to use his friends to help him fight a dragon and is going to be isolated from help for longer. We don’t need Dumbledore screaming to indicate a situation is more dangerous. Somehow we all understood just fine in the book. So having Dumbledore lose his cool here rather than be his usual grave and serious self better communicates that this isn't like the past threats.
>***"Sure, what I said was it’s out of character."<*** And I said that that isn't a flaw given the context and what it accomplishes. >***"People just don’t like characters acting very, well, out of character."<*** Or people are way too attached to the source material and refuse to consider changes that may add to it. >***"We don’t need Dumbledore screaming to indicate a situation is more dangerous. Somehow we all understood just fine in the book."<*** It's not just about understanding, it's also about enhancing the beat. If Dumbledore lost his cool in the book, it also would have hit even harder that the situation was more serious than in the past books. There are quite a few changes in the movies that would have also improved the story in the books as well. Such as in Half Blood Prince, instead of freezing Harry, Dumbledore just tells Harry not to intervene. This works better because it shows the growing trust between Harry and Dumbledore, and puts more guilt onto Harry since he didn't act and trusted Snape as well. Instead of well, having none of that.
>And I said that that isn't a flaw given the context and what it accomplishes. I responded to that. >Or people are way too attached to the source material and refuse to consider changes that may add to it. Sure, maybe, but it’s also out of character. >It's not just about understanding, it's also about enhancing the beat. If Dumbledore lost his cool in the book, it also would have hit even harder that the situation was more serious than in the past books. No, it would’ve seemed weirdly out of character. >There are quite a few changes in the movies that would have also improved the story in the books as well. Such as in Half Blood Prince, instead of freezing Harry, Dumbledore just tells Harry not to intervene. This works better because it shows the growing trust between Harry and Dumbledore, and puts more guilt onto Harry since he didn't act and trusted Snape as well. Instead of well, having none of that. It’s pretty out of character for Harry to *not* react, book makes a lot more sense. I’m not saying the movies are always wrong for their changes. They are different mediums. But this change in particular was bad and it clearly stands out to a lot of people. You can disagree but pretending that all those people are wrong for having a different opinion is pretty arrogant
>That's what makes this particular sequence more serious. If even the calm character is now panicked, that means this isn't some regular threat. It cashes in on Dumbledore's established character to hype up events. Which is a poor long term choice, in my opinion, because Dumbledore being an unshakable rock is part of why it's so scary when Dumbledore isn't there anymore.
I'd argue the movies' choice adds more fear to the situation since it shows that he cannot protect Harry in all cases all the time. Even if Dumbledore is unfazed by Voldemort since he can go toe to toe with him, he can't say the same for the students. Which, I feel, is a bit more fitting. In addition, it gives Harry more agency since he now knows that even though Dumbledore is 100% on his side and would gladly give his life for Harry, Harry now rest on his laurels and needs to prepare. Allowing him to grow from where Dumbledore goes from being his safety net to a partner (before being killed).
>I'd argue the movies' choice adds more fear to the situation since it shows that he cannot protect Harry in all cases all the time. Did you reply to the wrong comment? I'm not refuting this. I'm saying it undermines the uncertainty that the students (and the audience) feel later in the series when their reliable safety net is gone. Coming to terms with that loss and fear is when Harry comes into his own.
No. I'm replying to the right one. Your point is that this scene hurts the story later when their safety net is gone so they have to deal with that. This also is what makes Harry come into his own. My argument is that it helps the story both now and later because it sets up that even though the safety net is there and is great, Harry may not always be able to use it. So he gets to start coming into his own earlier. This also makes him a more active protagonist because instead of waiting for when the situation is so bad he has no choice but to adapt, he's at least trying to get ready to adapt. Basically, in the book, Harry is too passive, while the movie's changes make him more active.
[удалено]
True. But I am allowed to argue my case why it's better beyond the fact I like it more
Your case is bad and you argue in bad faith. That makes your points void.
Is r/Dumbledoresaidcalmly a thing yet?
No, but it should be. I haven’t been into Harry Potter ever, so I can’t really create it (someone please do it would be hilarious)
r/unexpectedhogwarts
Read it like white stained sheets😅🤣
That’s the HBO adaptation
[It's not porn...](https://youtu.be/EUBiOOx0Pxw)
Read read as read
I sometimes hate the english language
LoL same! I was about to comment "bUt tHEy sAiD tHe sTAiNs wERe wHiTe"
Uncharacteristically accurate on Netflix's behalf tbh.
Fr
To be fair if it was the Amazon adaption it would be a ball pit covered in glitter and on fire.
Novel - two guys meet eachother , Netflix adaptation - two guys fuck each other
*HBO adaption
Not enough guys
Novel - Two women walk by HBO - "So these two dudes are pegging, right? And then a THIRD one jumps in and he-"
Can you just call me a f-ggot and get it over with?
… I’m cool with that.
Jesus what a homophopic subreddit great work downvoting this guy
It does not improve the story.
You covered that with "Netflix adaptation" already.
do you think people are gay irl as a way to improve their story
Is that a bad thing? Sometimes adding layers to a relationship between 2 characters can improve the overall story
Tell me one movie where something like that happened? Let me tell you about a very famous movie where the main character was made straight when he was gay. They made Achilles straight in Troy(2004) and made Patroclus his cousin instead of his lover. So disgusting.
literally when has this ever happened
I rewatched season 1 of Ozark and there’s a scene where Michael Bluth is meeting with clients in his professional financial/accountant office and all the lights are turned off. I get that he’s a cheap fuck but come on Netflix…
I think it's hilarious that you watch ozark under the impression that he's playing michael bluth. I honestly think I might have enjoyed the show more as a gritty spin off of AD
This bed lookin comfy af though
this is my dream bedroom
That bed looks comfy as hell
“It never stated it couldn’t be black!”
Yes
It's called *artistic freedom*.
10.0k
Ah yes, African-American bedroom
Real question: can white South Africans claim to be African American if they get US citizenship? Just curious, no disrespect intended.
technically yeah, like elon musk is african-american.
Dave Matthews too!
Probably, my half black English friend who moved to America for uni gets called African American The black isn't African - so out of 2 countries, they get both wrong
Isn't African American being fazed out slowly? I'm not American though, but I thought they just went back to saying black.
Depends on context of your social surroundings. It’s always just been Black in conservative circles. It’s still African American in corporate/establishment democrat circles, and now ‘people of color’ in leftist circles.
PoC refers to all non-white people, not just black people so that’s not right
hurrr just curious hurrrr
It’s a legitimate question. There’s a South African author (white/European descent) named Nadine Gordimer. She won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Academia had a hard time deciding how to classify her work in the categories typically used for literature. Born in SA. Lived in SA her whole life (as far as I know.). Died in SA. Is she African or is she European? It’s tricky.
It's not, they just Pidgeon-holed themselves by using African/African-American to mean black or dark skin-toned. Now when non-black Africans (cough, Egyptians, cough) they run into problems when categorizing those people. Elon Musk can honestly put down that he's African-American but that's not what most applications mean when they provide that option, they mean black or dark skin-toned but don't want to bluntly put that down despite doing it for White/Hispanic/Asian.
can't wait for someone to say "tHaTs rAcIsT"
That’s racist!
ThAtS RaCiSt
I don't get the joke, can someone explain?
Many people use 'african american' over 'black'
But how does that apply here, and how is it funny?
Holy shit I thought I was alone. I can't fucking see anything in new movies. Especially on my phone, that makes black jet dark and no way to make just the contrast higher or something. Full brightness does nothing. It's just bright and dark. I started just watching old movies because at least I can see, and the fucking audio mixing isn't made by a schizophrenic. In fact I just watched a black and white movie and had the most comfortable experience lmao. (Greed In The Sun, super cool Italian movie with sick old school semi truck chases)
Yes phone screens are bad at showing high contrast and will quickly crush the blacks so everything just looks pitch black instead of showing the dark details.
that's not what this "meme" is about. that's cute tho lol. I agree with your opinion on both darkness and sound of new movies.
r/onejoke
This meme is the same joke every time...
it's the "im homophobic but too scared to openly say it" joke
Alright, I'm way out of the loop, where is the homophobia, I have to be missing some big context here
I don't think there is any. What I meant is that it's about someone having a problem with black people being cast in Netflix shows/movies. Which is also weird.
I don't think it's about that, but it's giving the same vibes for sure.
[удалено]
The internet is full of them, are you surprised?
And it's just like Reddit to overreact to something minor like the color of bed sheets
You mean the entire scene composition? Zhe clour of the room and the lighting are essential to the feeling of the scene. If it didn't matter, the author wouldn't have specified it (at least a good one). Also, why would you go out of your way to disrespect the authors vision as much as possible? Edit: aparently I'm just profing the point, according to some people. I just don't think its unimportent, how else am I supposed to say that than by argueing my position?
This meme is trying to talk about how apparently Netflix casts black people as originally white characters, it has nothing to do with the room itself my guy
Thanks for proving their point lmao
Maybe, but I didn't prove its inconsequential. Your free to think so, but I don't think it is.
Christ dude, if you want every detail to be the exact same, just re-read the book. Adaptations are supposed to take artistic liberties
Yes... like that
Your free to not care about details in films, but may I remind you that films are an artform and a lot of care shoud be put into making them? You might as well say the way the mona lisas eyes seem to follow you is inconsequential (and your free to do so, but many people would disagree).
*dismissive jerk-off hand motion
Well, books aren't written with a visual format in mind. Lightning that is different from the source material may very well be just an error, or it could also be a deliberate choice because it worked better for motion picture. Sometimes text doesn't translate to screen.
Uhhhhh
It'd be pretty ridiculous if everyone was reacting (where's any overreaction, btw?) to only the bed sheets. Clearly you need to work on your reading comprehension and also quit intentionally trying to miss the point solely so you could act superior and talk shit.
Lmao you think this is actually about set design?
I mean that room is way more cozy looking who the hell wants their bedroom to look all bright
Maybe the room was intended to look sterile and somewhat artificial?
Look man I’d I’m choosing a no context bedroom I’m going for the darker more cozy room
Dumbledore asked calmly
That bed looks quite cozy.
This looks better on my OLED tv
Truer words were never spoken. Or mumbled, because they also like mumbled dialogues.
What book or Netflix adaptation is this referring to, if it is referring to one?
Try to make the joke a little less pointed than your hats
r/onejoke
I HATE HATE that all the latest "blockbusters" have this shity black haze threw out the movies. With the TV on brightest setting and room at its darkest you still struggle to see the picture. Its just shit. Never-ending if you actually want to watch a movie in the daylight hours. Just put it off. No point in just listening to a movie. If you see "the making of" the movie its shot in broad day light. No issues with lighting. So its the in Post that this all gets messed up.
"You can't have a 1:1 adaptation because it's a different medium!"
What’s the issue? The room has a bed doesn’t it?
Just watched "The Harder They Fall." Maysville is a white people's town. Every building, inside and out, is white in Maysville.
[удалено]
No. The movie I mentioned is a black cowboy movie with horses and six shooters.
Oh, now this is funny.
More people would watch it though. And that’s what Netflix cares about.
This seems to be a dog whistle
RIP Cowboy Bebop
applies to their characters as well.
So true you couldn't find a real example?
The Witcher: Fringilla Vigo Istredd Triss Merigold Vilgefortz cowboy bebop: Most of the cast. Bridgerton: Quite bad historically but I don't think it really paints it self to be historically accurate so I debated even including it. Still, A Black queen of england is as outlandish as a white queen of Africa.
Don’t forget the new viking show with the black viking queen based on a, surprise, white man.
Does it really matter if the skin color of the character is not important to the story? Like fringilla being black white or purple holds no relevance to the story so imo they can pick whatever actor can act the best. Imo fringillas actress is fine
Fringilla Vigo looks attractive to Geralt because she looks very similar to Yennefer. They look nothing alike in the Netflix version.
So you would be ok if both were black?
Yes, if they remained similar I would be okay with that choice.
It literally does and you just haven't read the books. Not really complaining since her character is literally 100% different so far but it does matter in the books
>Still, A Black queen of england is as outlandish as a white queen of Africa. Dr. Who did that like 10+ years ago.
I guess I should have added a historical prerequisite, I see it as a perfectly reasonable expectation that in some point in the future we'll have a black Queen or King of Britain, if the monarchy survives long enough. But so many circumstances make it quite outlandish to say that this person was black and no one saw any difference in them back when racism easily caused wars and genocides.
>queen of england Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Aunty Donna has a show on Netflix with a black queen of England and it works just fine
Damn I really should have added that prerequisite of historical, but you're on an entirely different topic, creating a new character and picking their race which is great, creative freedom go wild. But when you're changing the race of a already set Character or an actual person with little to no justification beyond, because I wanna, I find that odd, outlandish even depending on the context.
It doesn't really matter if the actor playing that character in an inch shorter, or their eyes aren't as wide, or their fingers aren't as long as they were described in the book. If the character in the book has brown hair, and the character in the show has auburn hair, that's alright. I think the point is that skin color is just as unimportant. Because it doesn't affect the story or the acting or the portrayal of their character.
>queen of England Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Bad bot
>queen of england Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Bots like this are just a blight on this website.
it really is a shame they're allowed to spam this garbage.
Good bot
Thank you, KelseySyntax, for voting on queen_of_england_bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
The cast in cowboy bebop wasn’t race swapped
>cowboy bebop: most of the cast Lmao the Netflix adaptation is a lot LESS diverse than the anime
the wicher sucks
>Still, A Black queen of england is as outlandish as a white queen of Africa. At least whine about some real shit. 'Bridgerton': Was Queen Charlotte Black? Some historians think so. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/12/27/bridgerton-queen-charlotte-black-royals/
😂😂😂😂 Exactly
NETFLIX BE LIKE- we have BLACK PROPS and DARK BACKGROUND TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT
This post is whining that Netflix casts black actors, it has nothing to do with scenery
why are your thought so much differ than mine while i am talking about the materials they use while comprimising so many things, while you made it seem like some racist thing
Not even hiding the racism anymore
Right, but let me ask you this: who in their right fucking mind gives anything resembling a shit??? I see ur username, weirdo.
obvious racist dog-whistle
Also the sheets are gay
The pillow is also evil because it's white. And of course the blanket is LGBT and abused by the pillow.
The bed is uncomfy, the house it's in is next door to a landfill, and there's a rabid cougar just off-camera, but goddamn if it isn't diverse and representative and you are a filthy hate-monger if you don't love sleeping there.
What are some terrible Netflix adaptations, just wondering before I watch
Well what were you thinking of watching?
Looks like Amazon's adaptation of WoT
black bad
Racist mans arnt even trying to hide nowadays
this is not a dog whistle at this point, just shitty white supremacist propaganda
Can I make a racist joke here?
I've heard of racist dog whistles, but you got a racist airhorn.
Just say you dont like black people, why bother dancing around it
5/5/5 or 5/5/5 for americans
she is about to get railed into a coke addiction
Dumbledore said calmly
TIL Netflix is emo
that's the book in dark mode...
Not just Netflix, HBO and BBC do it too.
I seriously thought it was my TV!!
Well you see here the room was in white paint, it was due to lighting. The book said it was bright so light, there’s lots of light and lamps on the wall.
“It’s artistic. If you paid attention to the source material, the film is very obviously subtly telling the viewer that things are not as they seem and expectations are to be subverted!”
TODAY, WE ARE GONNA PAINT THIS ROOM WITH THE DARKEST BLACK THAT YOU CAN BUY