Do we agree?

Nah, that would go without saying. It's that even though McGonagall agrees Umbridge is full of shit, you'd still expect her to punish Harry for talking that way to a professor. Instead she abandons her usual strictness and formality and just has a frank conversation with him telling him it's stupid to make trouble like that. She obviously empathizes with him and now considers him mature enough to level with, at least on this issue.

>Do we agree?
"No!"

Omg it's just like when ppl call trump a liar lol

How exactly is one inherently better than the other?

Nah. Bruce Willis being dead the whole time beats it.

The plot twist is that the one who said there's one doesn't know what a plot twist is.
Not surprising considering he or she loves harry potter desu

this

I'd argue the plot twist of the music video The Reason by Hoobastank is the greater one. Check it out.

We never agree with someone so dumb to actually like one of the dullest franchises in history. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

That isn't passive voice. There's nothing wrong with using passive voice. Stop reading Strunk & White.

>the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."
I've been reading the first book since yesterday and I only noticed it once.
Where else is it in the book?

It's not.

The word "stretched" is used 7 times total in Philosopher's Stone; almost always as "stretched out" or "out stretched". "Stretched his legs" is in there zero times.

In the rest of the series:
Chamber of Secrets: "stretched" is used 10 times.
Prisoner of Azkaban : 18 times
Goblet of Fire: 25 times roughly I wasn't paying attention. The Sphinx "stretched out her legs" once in this which is the closest match to the original string.
Order of the Phoenix: Just 2 instances of "stretched".

What is up with normies, especially girls, finding LE COOKIE! XD funny? That, and cats too. I just don't understand.

>le I may OR MAY NOT want to like just be a cat and eat cookies all day! xD GOALS!

Weird fucking post

That isn't a plot twist, it's simple irony.

Yeah fact-checking for yourself is much weirder than posting copypasta on the assumption it's correct.

Nah I have the book in front of me right now and it does appear at least once.
It has "He was in a very good mood until lunch-time, when he thought he'd stretch his legs and walk across the road to buy himself a bun from the baker's opposite.
Page 3 of my paperback.

Probably because I did a ctrl-f for 'stretched' rather than stretch. I tried again with 'stretch' and there's only that one use of it referring to a walk.

BASED

>one of the best plot twists in history
That's a very plausible statement.
If you only read J.K. Rowling

>Harry potter

Nice literature

Harry Potter is excellent literature for those ages 9-15. If you're older than that and read or examine these children's books then you need to take a good luck at your life

I feel pretty safe to say this person in the OPs pic filters everything in their life through a Harry Potter lens. Just like all those pathetic manchildren during the election who would go on and on about how the Hufflepuffs needed to be strong after "Voldemort's" election. It's pathetic. I'm really glad I avoided all of this tripe when I was a kid.

>Tolkien
>shit tier
wat

It's my opinion that you're a fucking moron.

Dude, it might be your first week here. Just leave and spare yourself the shame

No, he's right. Newfags do tend to get the impression Veeky Forums hates Harry Potter, but by and lard it doesn't. The general opinion is that it's a good children's series for exactly the reasons he mentioned.

You got it wrong. It's
>I may OR MAY NOT actually be a cat who eats cookies all day. #totally #notsuspicious #nya

>Page 3 of my paperback.
Ah, that's probably why the old fucker latched onto it.

>9-15.
Make that 5-12, max.

>you need to take a good luck at your life
>luck

>biscuit
fuck Great Britain

But how is that a "plot twist"

A bit of meme history for you.
The film part is taken from a review from film critic Armond White.
movie-film-review.com/devfilm.asp?rtype=3&id=15868

The book part is taken from an article by Harold Bloom.
archive.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/24/dumbing_down_american_readers/

>Ayn Rand anything but shit tier
You have read maybe 3 of all the books on this image and even after reading them all, you will not find a girlfriend, ever (a 12 year old who "consents" does not count)

The 3rd movie was directed by Cuarón and was a pretty fucking great film. Not sure if Spielberg would have been the best fit anyhow.

how is that a plot twist?
it's quite a few years since i read it but i can't remember this being a plot twist

Harry Potter, boy wizard, was a character in the 1986 movie Troll.

Fuck JK "Plagiarism is awesome" Rowling.

>mfw american cuisine

Isn't the whole plot of the damn thing, the kid wizard school, and all that the same basic plot of that one tv movie they used to play all the time in the 80s about the Witch school. they had the broomstick race and all that shit?

Atreyu makes me question my sexuality.

hellogiggles.com/harry-potter-worst-witch/

Here, this is what I'm talking about. Not reading all this shit because I don't really care though.

The Worst Witch, Troll and Gaiman's Books of Magic