Dcasey98

This sounds like it comes from someone who hasn't a clue what the Wizarding world is about, and I doubt you know a lot about it. 
 
JK Rowling, in the first book alone, included an 11 year old boy burning a man to death with his bare hands, a double murder, tales of war and torture, a man being possessed by another, his head grafted onto the back of his head, the consumption of animals for power...the books are dark. The source material is certainly darker than any entertainment brand today. Star Wars and Marvel are both "fluffy and light" in comparison to Potter. 
 
Again, I really can't lay a finger on what exactly you mean by "how little was actually there" when they turned dark. They were dark from the beginning, and it was apparent she was building up to something. You keep on inventing your own weird names and mentioning organizations of Quidditch leagues, except...since when has that been the limits of Rowling's political relevancy when she's literally written about war crimes, geonocide, mass murder, mudblood death camps, kangaroo courts, torture, assassinations, human trafficking, prohibition, the murder of children...like, at least try to care. Your justification for calling it "light and fluffy" seems like a mindless attempt to trivialize the series. This woman wrote an 8 installment series about a boy coming to terms with the increasingly violent world around him and the losses he had to go through to mirror her own experience with the death of her mother, suicidal thoughts, and depression and it's told really quite excellently. The fact that an entire generation clung to it more voraciously than any generation has before to a story, and have come to Rowling to tell her how her books got them out of depression, gave them the strength to confront abusers, accompany their child as they died from cancer...to say it has no substance and is light and fluffy is an insulting, patronizing, bald faced lie, and it flies in the face of everything the books stood for. 
 
The books never attempted to be "light and fluffy" outside of a few irrelevant world building details. They were dark books. No ones claiming it's the greatest piece of literature ever, but for highly commercial fantasy, it's really quite mature, and lying about its tone and patronizing it to disclude it from the creative conscious is really disrespectful. This is the forum that will praise Star Wars and Jurrassic Park, both of which are much lighter and fluffier than JK Rowling's Wizarding World, (particularly the former: Ewoks, Jar Jar Binks, farting aliens, come on people,) so I don't really understand the voracious hatred and dismissal of her work. 
 
Basically, the Potter stories are dark and tragic. They're not light and fluffy in any significant way, and you're not going to find many people who will agree. The "heart of the story" as Jo claims, is the scene where Harry walks into the forest and uses the resurrection stone to confront the murdered loved ones he's lost, and use them to comfort him will he died for the community that took him in and gave him a family. Cursed Child sees him bonding tearfully with his son at the gravesites of everyone he lost. And at the end, he built a family. Something that was ripped away from him at age 1. For something so commercial, that really is quite mature and tragic. 
 
Cultural elitism doesn't get people anywhere. Sorry.

This sounds like it comes from someone who hasn't a clue what the Wizarding world is about, and I doubt you know a lot about it. 
 
JK Rowling, in the first book alone, included an 11 year old boy burning a man to death with his bare hands, a double murder, tales of war and torture, a man being possessed by another, his head grafted onto the back of his head, the consumption of animals for power...the books are dark. The source material is certainly darker than any entertainment brand today. Star Wars and Marvel are both "fluffy and light" in comparison to Potter. 
 
Again, I really can't lay a finger on what exactly you mean by "how little was actually there" when they turned dark. They were dark from the beginning, and it was apparent she was building up to something. You keep on inventing your own weird names and mentioning organizations of Quidditch leagues, except...since when has that been the limits of Rowling's political relevancy when she's literally written about war crimes, geonocide, mass murder, mudblood death camps, kangaroo courts, torture, assassinations, human trafficking, prohibition, the murder of children...like, at least try to care. Your justification for calling it "light and fluffy" seems like a mindless attempt to trivialize the series. This woman wrote an 8 installment series about a boy coming to terms with the increasingly violent world around him and the losses he had to go through to mirror her own experience with the death of her mother, suicidal thoughts, and depression and it's told really quite excellently. The fact that an entire generation clung to it more voraciously than any generation has before to a story, and have come to Rowling to tell her how her books got them out of depression, gave them the strength to confront abusers, accompany their child as they died from cancer...to say it has no substance and is light and fluffy is an insulting, patronizing, bald faced lie, and it flies in the face of everything the books stood for. 
 
The books never attempted to be "light and fluffy" outside of a few irrelevant world building details. They were dark books. No ones claiming it's the greatest piece of literature ever, but for highly commercial fantasy, it's really quite mature, and lying about its tone and patronizing it to disclude it from the creative conscious is really disrespectful. This is the forum that will praise Star Wars and Jurrassic Park, both of which are much lighter and fluffier than JK Rowling's Wizarding World, (particularly the former: Ewoks, Jar Jar Binks, farting aliens, come on people,) so I don't really understand the voracious hatred and dismissal of her work. 
 
Basically, the Potter stories are dark and tragic. They're not light and fluffy in any significant way, and you're not going to find many people who will agree. The "heart of the story" as Jo claims, is the scene where Harry walks into the forest and uses the resurrection stone to confront the murdered loved ones he's lost, and use them to comfort him will he died for the community that took him in and gave him a family. Cursed Child sees him bonding tearfully with his son at the gravesites of everyone he lost. And at the end, he built a family. Something that was ripped away from him at age 1. For something so commercial, that really is quite mature and tragic. 
 
Cultural elitism doesn't get people anywhere. Sorry.

New JNH track: 
 
Porpentina takes Newt in / MACUSA Headquarters 
 
 

I don't disagree and I'm not saying great music would have made the scene a masterpiece, but I'm not totally convinced that was the most that could have been done with it. But I mean, it's fine, the problems with the scene aren't with Desplat. I just don't feel like his work does anything but add some adrenaline (which is how I feel about a disappointing amount of the score), whereas I think at least a little more emotional focus was possible. Actually the best possible version of the confrontation might have been unscored, but I don't think Yates's attempt would work without music.
 
 
I guess pot meet kettle then, brother.
 
 
We're going to have to agree to disagree on a lot of these points. Point blank, the film obviously succeeds because it connected with you. You find the face-merge and Voldemort's disintegration interesting to look at and haunting imagery, you find the battle on the staircase a human and powerful sequence and expressive of character. I do not.

Well that makes you sound even more unintelligent and idiotic. Bye. I have no time for people who "don't care" about everything.

This sounds like it comes from someone who hasn't a clue what the Wizarding world is about, and I doubt you know a lot about it. 
 
JK Rowling, in the first book alone, included an 11 year old boy burning a man to death with his bare hands, a double murder, tales of war and torture, a man being possessed by another, his head grafted onto the back of his head, the consumption of animals for power...the books are dark. The source material is certainly darker than any entertainment brand today. Star Wars and Marvel are both "fluffy and light" in comparison to Potter. 
 
Again, I really can't lay a finger on what exactly you mean by "how little was actually there" when they turned dark. They were dark from the beginning, and it was apparent she was building up to something. You keep on inventing your own weird names and mentioning organizations of Quidditch leagues, except...since when has that been the limits of Rowling's political relevancy when she's literally written about war crimes, geonocide, mass murder, mudblood death camps, kangaroo courts, torture, assassinations, human trafficking, prohibition, the murder of children...like, at least try to care. Your justification for calling it "light and fluffy" seems like a mindless attempt to trivialize the series. This woman wrote an 8 installment series about a boy coming to terms with the increasingly violent world around him and the losses he had to go through to mirror her own experience with the death of her mother, suicidal thoughts, and depression and it's told really quite excellently. The fact that an entire generation clung to it more voraciously than any generation has before to a story, and have come to Rowling to tell her how her books got them out of depression, gave them the strength to confront abusers, accompany their child as they died from cancer...to say it has no substance and is light and fluffy is an insulting, patronizing, bald faced lie, and it flies in the face of everything the books stood for. 
 
The books never attempted to be "light and fluffy" outside of a few irrelevant world building details. They were dark books. No ones claiming it's the greatest piece of literature ever, but for highly commercial fantasy, it's really quite mature, and lying about its tone and patronizing it to disclude it from the creative conscious is really disrespectful. This is the forum that will praise Star Wars and Jurrassic Park, both of which are much lighter and fluffier than JK Rowling's Wizarding World, (particularly the former: Ewoks, Jar Jar Binks, farting aliens, come on people,) so I don't really understand the voracious hatred and dismissal of her work. 
 
Basically, the Potter stories are dark and tragic. They're not light and fluffy in any significant way, and you're not going to find many people who will agree. The "heart of the story" as Jo claims, is the scene where Harry walks into the forest and uses the resurrection stone to confront the murdered loved ones he's lost, and use them to comfort him will he died for the community that took him in and gave him a family. Cursed Child sees him bonding tearfully with his son at the gravesites of everyone he lost. And at the end, he built a family. Something that was ripped away from him at age 1. For something so commercial, that really is quite mature and tragic. 
 
Cultural elitism doesn't get people anywhere. Sorry.

Yeah Peter Pettigrew literally gets choked to death by his own hand in DH, they didn't even include that in the film version!