Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series

[gkgyver 1,645]

17 hours ago, Dcasey98 said:

Why is this thread full of David Yates haters and Potter ignorants bashing the later films and overcompensating by crafting these elaborate, stupid statements about how 'un-magical' his films are, and trying to shove the series in the 'childrens' category. 

 

You out people are fans of Star Wars, one of the most childish, undeserving franchise I've seen, and you have the audacity to call Potter childish? Compare the first book to Matilda? (I snorted at that part.) Call the film's "childlike entertainment" (excuse me, sir, Deathly Hallows Part 1 would like to speak with you, and plus, how is Harry Potter, out of all the childish marvel films and the crappy YA material released each year, deserving of the 'childlike entertainment' title? Uh, buh bye,) and lie and exaggerate and say the film's are full of kiddie dialogue and campy acting (in Deathly Hallows Part 1 no less? Show me where. Bullshit. The Harry Potter films are so praised because, unlike most blockbusters, they retain a significant modicum of maturity and lyricism.) 

 

Rowling writes a lot of dark stuff and all I see is people complaining that she wrote a lot of dark stuff and that material was adapted accordingly. Sorry it punched your pretty idealistic teeth out. "But no, it's not that I can't deal with darkness", you'll say. "It's that it needs to have humor as well"...that sort of proves my point. If it's a bleak film "it's childish, irrelevant, Harry Potter is stupid anyway, who cares?"....rigggghttt...because we have to trivialize and delegitimize that which we don't understand or that which scares us. 

 

To delegitimize Rowling's themes of death, discrimination, losing innocence, war, political corruption, loss, depression, etc, is just so unbelievably disrespectful. Seriously, just because everyone in these forums is biased to films John Williams works on, you want to twist the "gets darker as it goes along" narrative of the Potter stories in order to heap disproportionate praise on Williams for being above those simple, pop cultural peasants who made the incredibly gritty, dark later films, yet his scores are the least complex or creative. 

 

The Wizarding World brand is an entertainment brand marketed to teens and adults. It's a mature, dramatic story. So whatever sensationalistic comments you want to make about how far beneath you it is, the fact that you people will happily consume Star Wars (a brand far more directly marketed at children than the Wizarding World,) just proves that you have no high ground to stand out. Your shouting from the lower level of culture. I can't hear you, sorry trolls. 

 

 

You make it sound like Harry Potter is relevant in 2016. Kudos!

[bollemanneke 3,338]

Can you define relevant? Would you say Fantastic Beasts is relvanat?

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

Harry Potter is obsolete.  

[bollemanneke 3,338]

When is the OP coming back?

[Bilbo 3,709]

I'm seeing PoA in the cinema on Saturday.  Looking forward to hearing that score over cinema speakers again. 

[mrbellamy 6,272]

8 hours ago, Skelly said:

 

I'm sure he did; Mark Day says he works with Yates very closely. The problem isn't necessarily that they cut too much - it's that they cut out the wrong scenes. For DH Pt. 1, instead of removing the inconsequential scene where Hermione finds the Deathly Hallows symbol on a tombstone, they cut out the important one that explains what that damn mirror is. Instead of taking away the incredibly silly sequence where Nagini disguises itself as an old lady, they removed the part that explains why Death Eaters come immediately to the Lovegood house.

 

Not sure about your suggestions, personally, but I agree with the general point that the adaptations lacked focus. Honestly this was a problem from the beginning with Columbus but it just got worse as it went along and the books became more unwieldy. Things would set up but never pay off, or other things would just show up in the films with no set-up, or the filmmakers would try to squeeze in things (either popular scenes from the books or new ideas) that probably created more trouble than they were worth.

 

They just couldn't nail down how to condense these mammoths, be faithful to the general storyline and keep Rowling's spirit in there, while also simply making entertaining movies with room for interesting character moments. They kept losing focus, plus I just don't think the writing, directing, editing, or acting was always clear enough to have all these details come across.

 

I mean, back to Skelly's post, you mentioned the part about needing to explain Voldemort's name being "tabooed." Honestly, that's a lesser offender and I'm willing to go with the notion that Lovegood saying "Voldemort!" simply coincides with the Death Eaters finding them as a cinematic flourish...I think that's how it plays to a non-reader and that's fine.

 

Still, look at the deleted scene of the proper explanation:

 

 

Here's why I don't think that works.

 

First of all, the writing....the way it was set-up doesn't really make it THAT clear that she was about to say Voldemort's name before Ron interrupts, and then they quickly drop the subject before you can even comprehend that info bomb. Just saying "They tabooed You-Know-Who's name, that's how they track people" doesn't mean anything to people who haven't read the book. Who knows what that even means or how it works? And since that's the only time they ever bring it up, then it's probably not something that people would connect or remember when Lovegood finally calls the Death Eaters, because for the rest of the film, they flawlessly say "You Know Who" every time. However, what's interesting is that the screenplay does specify that Hermione should have started to say "Vol--" which would have fixed that issue in this clip, and Steve Kloves also worked in another near-miss later where Harry almost says it at one point then stops himself, which would have helped remind the audience that that's still a thing.

 

Also the directing/editing choice is to stay in a master shot which I generally like as a staging technique, but it's not great for emphasizing an important detail, especially one that's setting up a big moment that doesn't pay off for another hour. They do make a cut to Harry but that just emphasizes him wondering where Ron heard about it, which is less relevant. If maybe Harry had said "Taboo?" first then the cut would be more helpful since at least it would put additional emphasis on the word and highlight that concept in particular, if only it were explained.

 

And then finally the acting, it was Emma Watson and Rupert Grint's responsibility along with Yates to make sure Hermione actually starts to say "Vol--" or "Voldemo--" before or while Ron interrupts so the audience could catch that. Plus Grint just mumbles through his dialogue and so half the audience wouldn't have heard what he said, anyway. 

 

So it's not just about what gets cut out or left in. The Potter movies had these problems with clarity where different facets of filmmaking were more subtly working against making these complicated plots as clear as possible to audiences who often walked out entertained but confused. You can't expect everybody to go through these movies with a fine-tooth comb afterwards and they shouldn't have to.

[Skelly 261]

Haha, watching it now I'm almost glad, in a way, that the scene was cut... it just doesn't look right at all, for the reasons you stated. Then again, maybe editing for it wasn't fully finished yet.

 

38 minutes ago, mrbellamy said:

So it's not just about what gets cut out or left in. The Potter movies had these problems with clarity where different facets of filmmaking were more subtly working against making these complicated plots as clear as possible to audiences who often walked out entertained but confused. You can't expect everybody to go through these movies with a fine-tooth comb afterwards and they shouldn't have to.

 

What astounds me about that aspect is that, for the last three films, they had unrestricted access to the Potter mythos. All seven books were out by that time - and yet important plot points were introduced without warning and without explanation (the mirror is the biggest offender in my eyes) in the Deathly Hallows films. DH Pt. 1 might have been a contender for the best film in the series if it made any sense at all.

 

I haven't read any of the screenplays or shooting scripts, so I don't know if these gaping omissions are a result of Kloves not being able to pull everything together, or if the scenes were tossed out in the editing room.

 

From Goblet of Fire through the end of the film series, I think the word 'jarring' is a good description - because an audience member who hasn't religiously read the books is being pulled in so many directions and can't have a solid understanding of what the focus is supposed to be on. Information is constantly being piled on, and so much of it is either inconsequential or is lacking clarity. The first three films have more or less a pretty good flow that can be easily followed and understood, but almost from the very start of GoF, you're struggling to understand where Harry is, what's he's doing, and why.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

Totally agree. And again, I think it's all different things contributing to that feeling at any one time. I mean, even music, sometimes I just don't think it was effective enough in poking us awake during exposition, or using themes to tie things together. I really think Williams' 3-Note-Loop would have been super valuable to keep around as a "mystery" motif, just a couple carefully placed instances per film to make people go "Oh there's that thing, maybe I should pay attention here."

 

And yeah, that's definitely the oddest part about it is that the last three films probably had the murkiest storytelling and they were the ones where they finally had a clear picture to work with, plus Hallows obviously was the only one to split a book in two. The mirror is a sticking point with me as well, especially because there was such an easy fix built-in to the story: they return to Grimmauld Place and Harry actually goes in Sirius's room! Could have just found the broken mirror on the floor, happened to see Aberforth's eye, and pocketed a shard out of curiosity before Ron calls downstairs about RAB. 30 seconds. Better yet, Harry could have accidentally knocked the mirror off a desk which you could say would give Aberforth a reason to look in the mirror since he would have heard the crash on his end (can't remember if that's actually how it would have worked, but it's enough of a stretch.)

 

1 hour ago, Skelly said:

I haven't read any of the screenplays or shooting scripts, so I don't know if these gaping omissions are a result of Kloves not being able to pull everything together, or if the scenes were tossed out in the editing room.

 

I've never actually read the full things either haha, just a lot of skimming and CTRL+F but yeah they are out there and easy to find online. My observations are that they were really not great scripts to begin with. It's easy to see the struggles that Yates would have had trying to execute everything and in some ways I think he improved on them, but just on a scene-by-scene basis a lot of things that people complain about that were missing were definitely accounted for in the scripts. Thinking of Part 1, there's the taboo thing, Lupin telling Harry about Tonks' pregnancy and asking him to be godfather, Harry comforting Ron after the Horcrux vision. It's just they weren't always written that well and it probably made some of those things feel disposable as they were doing them.

 

And some of the writing was just awful, like changing Snape's "Don't call me a coward" line from HBP to (literally) "Don't ever associate that word with my name again"

[Will 2,215]

22 hours ago, Dcasey98 said:

 

You out people are fans of Star Wars, one of the most childish, undeserving franchise I've seen.

 

Read this: http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/ring-composition-chiasmus-hidden-artistry-star-wars-prequels/

 

Then tell me it's childish and undeserving.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

It's funny how somebody with 98 in their name (likely referencing their birth year) is criticizing something as "childish".  You were a child less than a year ago!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I'm glad people have finally come around to the simple notion that you shouldn't need to have read the novels to follow the movies properly. It's an annoying and infuriating push by the Cult of Rowling, whose followers used to (and probably some still do) insist that holes in the films where plot points where set up but had no payoff (or the other way around) didn't matter because you could fill the gaps in your own head based on your novel knowledge.

 

Ugh! Even if I've read the damn things five times, I should not be expected to do that! It must be a bookworm thing, where they have little-to-no respect for film as an artform and little understanding of the language of film because they're so wrapped up in the written word. Essentially they see the films as fanart appendices to the novels, so missing plot points in the wrong places aren't a biggie.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

Yeah, I've never felt that way. But I do find the movies so entertaining despite all my problems with them that I try to excuse them if I think there's another valid way to look at it. Like the Azkaban criticism about never revealing who created the map doesn't matter so much to me because all the relevant information is included or implied in the film, and also later in the series (like how Pettigrew becomes "Wormtail," and people call Sirius "Padfoot" as a codename). It would have taken 2 seconds to state it outright, but I don't think someone would have to strain themselves to figure it out either.

 

I draw the line more when something was brought in with no forethought or follow-up whatsoever, or that you have to assume the characters know something you don't and never will. In Part 2, the whole reveal about Sirius's mirror with Harry starting to rant about the other piece being stolen and Aberforth saying he knew Harry would be mad about it....that's a cringeworthy moment to me because it's completely wasting our time. That has nothing to do with the movies and there was no way any of that computed with people who never read a page of the books.

 

There's also that weird moment where Harry says he thinks he knew he was a Horcrux all along and so did Hermione and then she starts sobbing in recognition while Ron looks nonplussed in the background. Just, where does that even come from?

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

11 hours ago, mrbellamy said:

The Potter movies had these problems with clarity where different facets of filmmaking were more subtly working against making these complicated plots as clear as possible to audiences who often walked out entertained but confused. You can't expect everybody to go through these movies with a fine-tooth comb afterwards and they shouldn't have to.

I think this is a good observation, and partially explains these film's success. As you said, the average audience member was entertained even if they didn't pick up everything...a lot of "I liked it, but how did Arthur Weasley get hurt again...?" kind of thing leaving the theatre. The Potterheads on the other hand weren't confused because they mentally added the connective tissue to the errant plot points, sometimes likely unconsciously. Then they'll walk out and say to each other "Well, they changed the book, but they had to dumb it down for the average audience member, didn't they."

 

I have problems with the movies, but when I remember how rambling, repetitive, exposition thick and plot driven the books can be, I actually come away somewhat impressed that the filmmakers pulled it off as well as they did. Though sometime's I think Yates must have had his own variation of Lucas's direction..."Less childish. Darker."

[bollemanneke 3,338]

On the subject of people not having to read the books, I agree. Also, I hate how some people insist that all the actors should have read the novels. Why? Give them a proper script and it'll be fine.

 

But I don't agree that GOF was already jarring. For me, all hell will always break loose the mmoment Yates comes in.

[Skelly 261]

4 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

On the subject of people not having to read the books, I agree. Also, I hate how some people insist that all the actors should have read the novels. Why? Give them a proper script and it'll be fine.

 

Well in some cases, knowing what your character will be up to in future installments can be helpful. I think JK Rowling even told Alan Rickman Snape's backstory early on so that he could better understand the character.

[bollemanneke 3,338]

But wasn't that because he specifically asked her about that?

[Skelly 261]

I don't know... Rowling was famously protective of HP secrets, so I don't think she would have told him only because he asked.

John Williams found that reading the book had a profound effect in crafting his score, by the way.

[bollemanneke 3,338]

Hmm... I remember something about Rickman asking her about plot points because he wouldn't be able to deliver a line correctly otherwise...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Rowling shared a few things with Rickman that she didn't share with anyone else apparently 

[Bilbo 3,709]

Rickman didn't want to do the part because he'd done the arch bad guy before. Rowling told him about Snape's relationship with Harry's Mam and that convinced him to do it. 

 

 

He used this knowledge when directors challenged him on his reading of particular lines and they way he gave some performances. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Must have been nice to play the "Rowling card" and overrule directors.

[Bilbo 3,709]

5 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Must have been nice to play the "Rowling card" and overrule directors.

 

I belive he said something to that effect alright! 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That basically renders the job and point of the direct useless!

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

1 hour ago, Bilbo Skywalker said:

 

He used this knowledge when directors challenged him on his reading of particular lines and they way he gave some performances. 

I knew he knew about Snape, but didn't know about playing the "Rowling Card". Pretty funny actually. Rickman was cool customer.

[Bilbo 3,709]

1 minute ago, Nick1066 said:

I knew he knew about Snape, but didn't know about playing the "Rowling Card". Pretty funny actually. Rickman was cool customer.

 

He was perfect for the role. Never saw him in something and failed to enjoy his performance. Always seemed to give everything regardless of how good the film was. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Yep. His performance in Robin Hood is one reason I don't turn the channel right away when it pops up on TV.

[Bilbo 3,709]

He was very disappointed in the way the final cut of Michael Collins portrayed Dev. Said he'd have loved another go with a script that showed him in a more favourable light. Would have loved to have seen that. 

[Dcasey98 5]

18 hours ago, gkgyver said:

 

You make it sound like Harry Potter is relevant in 2016. Kudos!

This is exactly the sort of stupidity I'm talking about. Look at what trends in the news and on Twitter, sweetie, and you'll find it's more consistently relevant than Star Wars. I seem to recall it has a stage play that opened two months ago to rave reviews and is currently sold out till December 2017. Relevant?! No. It's the fastest selling stage play of all time currently but hey, that can happen to anything. It's not like there's a trilogy of highly anticipated Wizarding world films coming out over the next three years or that it doesn't pop up in some way shape or form every day in the news, social media, or in tabloids. 

 

I'm sorry, but you obviously have some irrational hatred of the brand to suggest it's not relevant. Whether you think Beasts will do well or not, Harry Potter and the Wizarding World remains to be, quite obviously, one of the most relevant pieces of entertainment this year, and will be for years to come. 

 

Your clutching at straws and making wild and stupid claims to attempt to delegitimize it. For some reason. But hey, I don't usually give my time to trolls. Bye. 

[bollemanneke 3,338]

But you fail to mention that that stage play is ten times worse tan average teenage fan fiction. Tell me this: was it ever destined to receive bad reviews or sales?

[Dcasey98 5]

3 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

But you fail to mention that that stage play is ten times worse tan average teenage fan fiction. Tell me this: was it ever destined to receive bad reviews or sales?

No, the play got good reviews from almost every critic in attendance. It's received unanimous 5 star praise and sits as one of the best reviewed stage productions of the year. 

[bollemanneke 3,338]

And how many of these critics are familiar with the books and realise 80% of the lines are out of character?

[Dcasey98 5]

14 hours ago, Will said:

 

Read this: http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/ring-composition-chiasmus-hidden-artistry-star-wars-prequels/

 

Then tell me it's childish and undeserving.

There's nothing in the more mature or intelligent than much in modern Hollywood. Sorry.

[Skelly 261]

They probably just felt compelled to give it 5 stars because it's Potter.

[Dcasey98 5]

5 minutes ago, Skelly said:

They probably just felt compelled to give it 5 stars because it's Potter.

No, they gave it 5 stars because the acting is good, the music is amazing, the thematics involving parenthood, traumas of war, and recovering from death relevant, the beautiful production design effective, the on stage effects truly amazing...all reason it's been highly regarded. 

 

What Hollywood Reporter said:

This sometimes disturbing tale of murder, guilt and fear rethinks the core values of the franchise even via the recasting of familiar characters. Racist fans were horrified in the comments sections of many a website when it was revealed that Hermione would be played by Swaziland-born actor Dumezweni. (Rowling cheekily pointed out that the books never specify that she's Caucasian, just that she has curly brown hair.) A veteran of the London stage, recently seen in Carmen Disruption at the Almeida, Dumezweni exudes the intelligence we've come to expect from Hermione, as well as the sort of authority that makes it credible she'd have been appointed Minister of Magic at age 40.

 

What the Telegraph said: 

At heart, The Cursed Child concerns itself precisely with the anxiety of having an illustrious forebear and the dangers of trying to go back over old ground; it persuasively argues the value of doing so, too. There’s a universal, relatable emotional core to the show. How do we grow up? How do we talk to our closest family members? How do we heal deep-rooted psychological damage?

 

What Variety said: 

It’s the friendship of two bullied boys bound together, and it’s a beautiful, tender thing. The script by Jack Thorne (“Skins,” “Shameless”) recognizes that rejection breeds resentment, and outsiders stew into outcasts. No one’s born a villain, nor sees themselves as such, and where the books gave us stock baddies, “Cursed Child” fleshes them out. Albus and Scorpius only ever try to make good, but their efforts tend to lead to bad.

This is, however, still Harry’s story as much as his son’s, and if, 20 years ago, Rowling shepherded a generation through their teenage years, now she provides parenting lessons. An orphan abused by his foster family, Jamie Parker’s Harry struggles with his son. Their conversations always come back to him; their relationship is stern and serious, never playful or affectionate. The Boy That Lived has become The Man That Frowns — his hero complex is a burden and his childhood a barrier to letting others in. Parker’s superb. When he folds his arms, he seems to hug himself. His own frustrations rebound on his son.

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Geek vs. Geek!

 

This is like Star Wars cosplayers telling Star Trek cosplayers they're nerds.  There's enough room in Geekdom for everyone.

 

And Dcasey98, my suspicion is that the Potter books will continue to be beloved and read generations from now. And rightly so. They're already children's classics. And a pretty good read for adults as well. I for one read them as an adult and love them. Read them. Read them accompanied by William's score. Listened to the Jim Dale audiobooks, and the Stephen Fry version (prefer the Dale actually). They kept me company on some pretty special road trips. Also saw the play. It was great fun (if not a bit fan ficesh). So I get it.

 

Two things.

 

One, the books aren't the films. The books are already classics; the films aren't.

 

Secondly, without getting into the artistic merits of each franchise (De gustibus non est disputandum), if they're still making Wizarding World movies and plays in 40 years, and people still love and cherish and argue over it all, and quote it and reference it to death, then maybe you can credibly claim it's as relevant as Star Wars.  

[Bilbo 3,709]

You can't look at the numbers Force Awakens did at the box office and say it isn't relevant .

 

You can't look at the big crowds at midnight release parties for the script of the play and say Harry Potter isn't relevant. 

 

To say Harry Potter is more relevant (being a relative young franchise by comparison) than THE franchise (Star Wars) is disingenuous.

 

 

I love both by the way. 

 

I really enioy the Potter films but I would never call them classics. You do need to have read the books to properly get them and that is a flaw. 

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Dcasey98 loves to read, but doesn't differentiate well between your and you're - probably because all he reads is Potter schlock. 

[gkgyver 1,645]

1 hour ago, Dcasey98 said:

This is exactly the sort of stupidity I'm talking about. Look at what trends in the news and on Twitter, sweetie, and you'll find it's more consistently relevant than Star Wars. I seem to recall it has a stage play that opened two months ago to rave reviews and is currently sold out till December 2017. Relevant?! No. It's the fastest selling stage play of all time currently but hey, that can happen to anything. It's not like there's a trilogy of highly anticipated Wizarding world films coming out over the next three years or that it doesn't pop up in some way shape or form every day in the news, social media, or in tabloids. 

 

I'm sorry, but you obviously have some irrational hatred of the brand to suggest it's not relevant. Whether you think Beasts will do well or not, Harry Potter and the Wizarding World remains to be, quite obviously, one of the most relevant pieces of entertainment this year, and will be for years to come. 

 

Your clutching at straws and making wild and stupid claims to attempt to delegitimize it. For some reason. But hey, I don't usually give my time to trolls. Bye. 

 

No, I have irrational hatred for people who take themselves and the subject at hand too freaking serious.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

2 hours ago, Dcasey98 said:

This is exactly the sort of stupidity I'm talking about. Look at what trends in the news and on Twitters. 

Well, yeah, but that's just because most of the ten million Harry Potter Tweets everyday are from Rowling herself.

[Skelly 261]

@Dcasey98

 

2 hours ago, Bilbo Skywalker said:

I really enioy the Potter films but I would never call them classics. You do need to have read the books to properly get them and that is a flaw. 

 

If any of them are going to go down in film history as "classics", it's going to be either the first because it's so accessible and good-natured, or the third because it's brilliant. Neither of them necessarily require reading the books to get a full view of what's going on.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

The Potter films (minus the third) are competent adaptations, nothing more.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Yep. None of the films transformed, improved or expanded significantly on the source material in its own right, ala Jaws or The Godfather, both of which are arguably better than the books they're based on. And both are cinematic landmarks in their own right, and deservedly have classic status.

[Will 2,215]

8 hours ago, Dcasey98 said:

There's nothing in the more mature or intelligent than much in modern Hollywood. Sorry.

 

What? 

[mrbellamy 6,272]

11 hours ago, Skelly said:

If any of them are going to go down in film history as "classics", it's going to be either the first because it's so accessible and good-natured, or the third because it's brilliant. Neither of them necessarily require reading the books to get a full view of what's going on.

 

Yeah, I also think the vast majority of things that generally come to mind within the Harry Potter universe and that were particularly special to the movies or made extra iconic through them were immediately introduced in the first film and so that's the one that will stick out for most people. Hogwarts, most of the primary characters/actors, Hedwig's Theme, Diagon Alley, Platform 9 3/4, The Forbidden Forest, ghosts, goblins, wands, owls, dragons, trolls, chocolate frogs, house sorting, Quidditch, The Invisibility Cloak, Animagus etc. That's all there from the beginning. For cinephiles, Azkaban will always be the hip choice, especially with Alfonso Cuaron's profile having risen in esteem since then and still going.

 

Obviously the films got much more emotionally stark and violent in tone with intense and moody aesthetics but I think that's just something that's broadly acknowledged as part of the back half of the series as a whole, rather than being able to decisively single out any one film that did it better than the others. Psychologically, I don't find that they had much if anything to say on the subjects of "death, discrimination, losing innocence, war, political corruption, loss, depression" that the books didn't express much better and more completely in every one of those examples, not to mention other films. Yates's Order of the Phoenix is not exactly Ordinary People. Is there a film inside Rowling's book that could have competed? Maybe, but it's not the one they made.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Potter sucks.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

Do you enjoy this video as much as I do?

 

 

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

I was just thinking about that video today and chuckling at it.  Weird. 

[mrbellamy 6,272]

TMZ didn't know what they had.

 

 

[Will 2,215]

@Dcasey98 "Unlike Star Wars, JK Rowling writes stories with intelligence and thematic heft about her own dark experiences in life."

 

Yeah, it's not like Star Wars uses an absurdly complex form of parallelism called chiasmus, has incredibly intricate political plots and machinations, and delivers deep levels of hidden meaning. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

They don't.