- cross-posted to:
- shit@piefed.world
You must log in or # to comment.
It’s for streaming. Filming with flat colors and static cameras compresses better.
Why is anyone watching that garbage?
Some people are just obsessed with it. I never got into it, I even tried to watch it on acid and it still didn’t interest me, btw don’t do acid and go to a movie theater. I almost walked out of watching Tropic Thunder because I was like wtf is this in the character intros, so yeah acid isn’t always great for public stuff.
Anyway the funny was my ex-fiance was really into HP, one day she asks if she can read the books for me. I said okay. Then ironically she decides the perfect time is when I’m gaming with my buddies online. I still get jokes about it to this day, they were all laughing their asses off and I’m trying to keep a straight face like this is fine.
I enjoyed it as a kid. As an adult, the flaws are really hard to look past. From the goblins with massive noses that run the wizarding worlds economy, and is in kahoots with wizard Hitler, to the eugenics related hereditarianism views, etc. etc.
Every single woman character in her books are ridiculed, or plain evil, if they take up space at all. There are like three non-white women, two are basically clones. And every single character is good or evil based on genes. Harry is a mix of both his parents, having personality traits from both, despite never having met them. That’s not how things work.
It perfectly explains why Rowling pushes the politics she does. Her ideology is based on the long since discredited sciences of the early to mid 1900s, the stuff the Nazis were basing their ubermensch stuff on. Also explains why they so readily go hand in hand with neo-Nazis.
Every single woman character in her books are ridiculed, or plain evil, if they take up space at all.
Hermione is a hero, professor McGonagall is loved by everyone, as well as Molly Weasley and so on.
From the goblins with massive noses that run the wizarding worlds economy, and is in kahoots with wizard Hitler
Just a couple of years ago “people with massive noses” having kahoots with Hitler would be oxymoron.
But now, after genocide of Palestinians…You’re right, that was hyperbole. What I should’ve written is “every character that expresses traditionally feminine interests”, save for of course, the tradwife, like Molly Weasley whose entire character is just being a mother. Does she have interests beyond being a mother? No, with seven children who has time to be a person?
Hermione doesn’t engage with anything traditionally feminine, she’s a “not-like-other-girls” type character, hell she doesn’t really have any friends that aren’t boys. Even so, she’s often not taken seriously. She’s mocked for studying hard, and she’s mocked for her anti-slavery coalition, which people only really join half-heartedly in order to placate her.
There’s obviously Dolores Umbridge. She’s into cute, frilly, fluffy, pink things. She’s also a sadist. Her punishment for being bad is to be carried off by centaurs to get raped in a forest.
Luna Lovegood was introduced as another character to be bullied, and she remains on the outskirts throughout the book, but Rowling softened up on her once she got extremely popular with the fans of the series.
Just a couple of years ago “people with massive noses” having kahoots with Hitler would be oxymoron.But now, after genocide of Palestinians…
Ah right, the massive genocide of Jews, disabled people, LGBTQ+ people, and other minorities back in the mid 1900s was okay because the Israeli state is now running a genocide of their own. Rowling was correct to be antisemitic actually!
Molly Weasley whose entire character is just being a mother. Does she have interests beyond being a mother? No, with seven children who has time to be a person?
Excuse me, but I can’t agree with your position here.
Is a woman not allowed to realize itself through motherhood?Also Molly was smart and fierce (remember fight with Bellatrix Lestrange?
Hermione doesn’t engage with anything traditionally feminine, she’s a “not-like-other-girls” type character, hell she doesn’t really have any friends that aren’t boys
And I personally know such girls.
It’s perfectly normal for a girl to be like that.
Also her persona and stance evoke respect in the reader, as well as a sense that she is being treated unfairly.
There’s obviously Dolores Umbridge.
Haven’t you met cruel teachers / persons in power who acted all nice?
And it’s not like Dolores was the only villain in the books.
Luna Lovegood was introduced as another character to be bullied, and she remains on the outskirts throughout the book, but Rowling softened up on her once she got extremely popular with the fans of the series.
And her persona was revealed as a kind and brave hero.
It’s important for quirky children to feel represented.
Rowling was correct to be antisemitic actually!
Goblins didn’t strike me as jews exactly because they were friends with Harry Potter’s world Hitler.
A big nose and banking isn’t enough.Excuse me, but I can’t agree with your position here.Is a woman not allowed to realize itself through motherhood?
Of course. And according to Joanne KKK Rowling, that’s the only way you can be a woman; if you can produce children. Women are the ones with the large gametes! That’s the definition of woman, nothing else. Screw all cis-women who don’t fit the mold.
You’re not allowed to be too feminine, but also if you don’t adhere to white-feminine beauty standards you’re also bad.
Also Molly was smart and fierce (remember fight with Bellatrix Lestrange?
I do! “NOT MY DAUGHTER YOU DON’T!”
No matter what, Molly is nothing but a mother. There’s no character there beyond that.
And I personally know such girls.It’s perfectly normal for a girl to be like that.Also her persona and stance evoke respect in the reader, as well as a sense that she is being treated unfairly.
You’ve missed my point. My point is, there are many ways of being a person, and many ways of being a girl or a woman. Rowling doesn’t believe that, and the narrative she pushes explicitly defines what is and isn’t from her perspective, an acceptable way of being a woman. She very clearly values men over women.
Ember Green did an excellent video essay that touches on this topic.
Goblins didn’t strike me as jews exactly because they were friends with Harry Potter’s world Hitler.A big nose and banking isn’t enough.
Edit: As a child I looked past these things. I didn’t see them, I lacked the cultural context. I’m no longer a child, and now it’s blatantly obvious.
These books were written by a grown-ass woman who couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to name the only fucking Chinese character Cho Chang on accident. Her name is almost Ching Chong!
She couldn’t have been ignorant to the nazi rhetoric she spewed out, or the pro-slavery bits.
The books are soaked with racism, ableism, and misogyny and I don’t understand how anyone can go back to them as an adult, having obtained the cultural context, and still think the stories are okay.
deleted by creator
And according to Joanne KKK Rowling, that’s the only way you can be a woman; if you can produce children.
Harry Potter books don’t have that assertion to me. There are different positive female figures in the books.
There’s no character there beyond that.
Did you read my comment? There were examples of characters beyond that. Your own examples, in fact.
pro-slavery bits.
Hermione is opposed to slavery, even though elves themselves don’t consider it so (who knows why - they are magical creatures).
And Hermione is a positive figure. I was sympathetic with her goal when I read the books.Cho Chang
Chang is a common Chinese surname. Cho - was a miss.
Overall it looked like the author wasn’t really bothered to choose some real real name and chose to construct one to emphasize the character’s origin.
By the way: Cho Chang was a positive figure also.
I actually didn’t notice that, I mean I never really put much thought into it and never finished watching the movies. That’s kind of weird though when you explained the details.
It’s not garbage (and books too).
If you, perchance, want to discourage people from consuming Harry Potter because of Rowling’s views, then state so explicitly. It would send a clearer message.
You’re going full keyboard warrior in this thread despite acknowledging Rowlings bigotry. They are children books, no one needs you to defend every plot hole, racist caricature or political grievance she decided to include. You’re an adult, why are you putting this much effort into defending a terrible person and her terrible writing?
Surely you have better things to do. There are better books to read. There are better authors to stan.
You’re going full keyboard warrior in this thread
I can say the same about those, who replied to me and downvoted me.
I like the books. They are fine. Rowling is not fine.
IMO art can and should be separated from the author’s person and should be judged by itself.Life is complicated and multifaceted.
Ex harry potter fan. First 3 books were fun mystery books in magical world. No complaints there. After book 3 they went off the rails.
Matilda has a school with a bad teacher and parental figures. The Secret Seven has school aged kids solving mysteries. No one is complaining about them. But books 4-7 tries to go into the politics of the world, and they fall apart.
But books 4-7 tries to go into the politics of the world, and they fall apart.
In my case the plot was maturing with me. (I was a child of Harry’s age when the first book came out)
I don’t think it needs a remake. I’m not at all remotely interested in the material.
Yes, Rowling does have garbage views. Everyone knows that she hates women, Jews, and non-white people as is evident by her garbage stories, and her political actions. It’s rubbish and shouldn’t be platformed.
she hates women
Hermione, professor McGonagall, Molly Weasley for example - they are prominent and loved characters.
It’s
nothot garbage (and books too).Ftfy.
They’re remaking Harry Potter? Why?
To support transphobia.
Wtf is the breakfast shown from the 2026 version? It looks like an American school cafeteria meal. Where are the goblets? Why are there trays? Kids don’t need to carry their food. It magically appears and disappears on the tables from the house elves.
Does the food even cost them anything besides…wait, do they even have mana pools?
Hadn’t you heard? Everything is fucking stupid now.
House elves are racist/woke/expensive/striking/wrong-religion now 😜
The house elves were always fucked up
Wait till you see the bankers
Surely they can’t be tha…oh.
Oh, my.
The top one is a dinner, while the bottom image is of a breakfast. The colors just didn’t have had time to wake and drink their coffee yet!
They’re paywalled, you need a WB Chroma+ subscription to see the rest.
The egg looks plastic for some reason
TV panels are light years better at displaying lower light colors and differentiating between blacks than they were in 2001.
As things like OLED technology and HDR offerings have advanced, directors, set designers, consumer designers, cinematographers, and editors across all of post production have been able to work with more of the palette as a result.
Older works needed to be over lit and wash out nearly everything on screen just so that every pixel darker than light tan didn’t meld into one blob of color. That is no longer necessary and, as a result, the worlds shown to us in our living rooms look more real and lived in than ever.
Unless you have a TV from the 2010s in which case fuck you.
Yes, but really, no, in this situation… Look at the other comment https://pawb.social/comment/24159500
This is likely the case, done like the matrix where there are differing scenes, exposures, coloring and/or filters between worlds so the viewers can differentiate.
This is proven bc I can watch old HP on my old 2011 FHD TV and it doesn’t look entirely different than my newer UHD HDR screen. It’s that way on purpose. Otherwise older films would all be blown out with coloring or contrast too, and they’re not. Only retouching when going from VHS to DVD and/or DVD to Blu Ray, etc. Format changes do usually get a remastering.
Every iteration star trek’s lighting budget shrunk.
Lens flares count as lighting.
I am pretty sure it just counts as annoying, distracting, and fucking stupid.
Maybe that’s why alien ships in star trek often have such dim lighting- that’s how ships normally are and human ships are an exception slowly reverting to the mean
Klingons sets their spaceships to night mode because they are Autistic.
It’s a canonical plot point in Star Trek that many species prefer it darker and warmer than humans do.
Many species such as:
- Cardassians
The new one isn’t a movie, is it?
True, also the hall is lit with floating candles according to the source material. I imagine most of the castle should be relatively dark. Unless they want to say the candles are similar to bright LED lights, the whole thing should realistically be darker when inside. (Albeit the roof was supposed to be some magical protection varying with weather?)
should realistically be darker
Bro, this is literal fiction in a magic world. Maybe wizarding candles are miniature suns for all you know.
The cinematography and lighting has gone to shit over years and this (unwanted) iteration just seems to prove that point.
tbf original was wayyy oversaturated
In areas where it didn’t make sense it wasn’t. The high saturation in the shown scene helps emphasize the magical feeling the characters are feeling, which the viewer is supposed to emphathize with.
praise pazuzu
