Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

293

I just read Harry Potter 1 and 2. I did not read them for the same reasons I read ie Robin Hood, Little Mermaid and Pinocchio etc. I was not expecting them be morally corrupting, and 'wokinizing' the movie version. However there was one glaringly huge case of it in book 2.

The thing that bothered me was how book 2 was different from the movie. In many cases it simply changed things and the target of the scene so speak for no reason.

IE in the match malfoy got to be a seeker. He was an inept null when it came to playing. The problem was the bludger ball was cursed to only go for Harry over and over. Harry had to stay in constant motion. However the ball (snitch) sat right above Malfoy. The overcoming challenge was Harry got hit in the arm smashing the bones and Harry had to get the ball with one arm. 'That's it'.

However in the movie they made it into a scene where Harry and Malfoy battled it out chasing the snitch neck and neck. Why was this needed? The original story was more impactful. Malfoy was a null and Harry got literally obliterated by the bludger. Then it was about who cursed the bludger in the book, in the movie it was about Malfoy.

There were MANY cases of this in the second movie. However in the first it was really just about condensing 2 or 3 scenes down to one just to make the movie manageable.

The striking case that was OBVIOUSLY and FLAGRANTLY moloch worship was in the second book they had something called the 'mandrake'. The mandrake was a child that grew under the ground and grew a plant out of it's skull. If killed and chopped in to pieces, a soup of it would cure ANY aliment. The only 'distress' with dealing with them is if when killing them you heard their cries, you died. So you had to muffle your ears while killing them.

It was no doubt they were described as babies. However in the movie they were portrayed as disgusting roots kind looking like a creature.

↓ expand content
I just read Harry Potter 1 and 2. I did not read them for the same reasons I read ie Robin Hood, Little Mermaid and Pinocchio etc. I was not expecting them be morally corrupting, and 'wokinizing' the movie version. However there was one glaringly huge case of it in book 2. The thing that bothered me was how book 2 was different from the movie. In many cases it simply changed things and the target of the scene so speak for no reason. IE in the match malfoy got to be a seeker. He was an inept null when it came to playing. The problem was the bludger ball was cursed to only go for Harry over and over. Harry had to stay in constant motion. However the ball (snitch) sat right above Malfoy. The overcoming challenge was Harry got hit in the arm smashing the bones and Harry had to get the ball with one arm. 'That's it'. However in the movie they made it into a scene where Harry and Malfoy battled it out chasing the snitch neck and neck. Why was this needed? The original story was more impactful. Malfoy was a null and Harry got literally obliterated by the bludger. Then it was about who cursed the bludger in the book, in the movie it was about Malfoy. There were MANY cases of this in the second movie. However in the first it was really just about condensing 2 or 3 scenes down to one just to make the movie manageable. The striking case that was OBVIOUSLY and FLAGRANTLY moloch worship was in the second book they had something called the 'mandrake'. The mandrake was a child that grew under the ground and grew a plant out of it's skull. If killed and chopped in to pieces, a soup of it would cure ANY aliment. The only 'distress' with dealing with them is if when killing them you heard their cries, you died. So you had to muffle your ears while killing them. It was no doubt they were described as babies. However in the movie they were portrayed as disgusting roots kind looking like a creature.

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts 2y

Wait till you get into the rest of the books. I think the 2 most frustrating things removed in the later books were the hospital scene with Neville's parents, and the extended dialogue in train station between Harry and Dumbledore.

I also wish they hadn't made the movie Hermione such a fucking Mary Sue. In the books, she's a very flawed person and you love her for those flaws. It's made even worse because most of the "witty" stuff she says in the movies was actually said by Ron.

[–] • 1 pt 2y (edited 2y)

One thing I'm noticing book vs movie regarding Hermione is Hermione is hyper sexualized / the sexual focus. Where as in the book the love interest in work is obviously Ginny.

Hermione in the book is CLEARLY just friends. Even though it's a little uncertain for maybe the first half of the first book. By the second book very obvious. Despite being very desirable, she's obvious just friends with Harry. And it's obvious this interest is equal with Ron and Harry.

In the second movie they make it clear Hermione is enamored with Harry at the end, where as her relationship with Ron is troubled / second rate.

[–] • 2 pts 2y

wait till the later books. Seriously. half blood prince can be a bit of a slog, and the first half of deathly hallows is....what it is, but the books are, as cliche as it sounds, WAY WAY better than the movies.

[–] • 1 pt 2y

Rowling was just borrowing from classical mythology for mandrakes. There are no original ideas in those books, just re-workings of the old tales and legends.

[–] • 1 pt 2y

This is a spam thread. Notice how it claims the books came after the movies and not necessarily that he read them after he saw them, but that they were written after.

[–] • 1 pt 2y

Yeah, I didn't pay enough attention to the garbage to care.

[–] • 1 pt 2y

What was funny was back the 2000s when the Xitian Fundies (some fuckers who back Israel/Second coming to save jews) went on talk shows claiming Rowling was teaching children the occult. Anyone with a basic understanding of the occult, ouija boards, etc knows this was completely stupid and the flim flam preachers were only doing the song and dance for donations.

[–] • 0 pt 2y

Yep, then were all on board with LOTR

[–] • 0 pt 2y

I was not expecting them be morally corrupting, and 'wokinizing' the movie version.

The books came years before the movies. Spammy faggot.

[–] • 0 pt 2y

Well, the books are about “Witchcraft and Wizardry”, which are evil.

I was always surprised that they celebrated Christmas in the movies.

I never read the books. I’m sure they’re NWO propaganda couched in fantastical fun.

Good looking out.