Do you think he... you know...

>>211978631 (OP)
No I don't know wtf are inferring here?

>No I don't know wtf are inferring here?

Necromancy is frowned upon in the magical community, I'd say there is a good chance they weren't too keen on necrophilia as well. Maybe they have become more tolerant over time of deviant and alternative lifestyles.

>>211978631 (OP)
Do I think Alan Rickman realized that his decades-long legacy was going to be forever tarnished by his role in this series? There's no question; as a seasoned and intelligent actor, he would be well aware of the detrimental career implications of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. 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.

>>211978631 (OP)
>That night, I didn't touch her. I could have touched her, but I didn't.

>>211978733
kept it

>Do you think he... you know...

deh

>>211980817
>at some time had sex with boys 19 or younger
>at some time
>19 or younger
Apart from the fact that 19 is above the age of consent, the "at some time" qualifier means the other person could be the same age or even younger.
What percentage of teens have sex with other kids their own age?

>>211978631 (OP)
He definitely took enough strands of her hair with him for a lifetime supply of polyjuice to feed prostitutes with.

>>211978631 (OP)
Friendly reminder that Snape was a dark wizard affiliated with a group known to use corpses to make inferi.
He could have made Lily into a fully animated magically preserved sex doll.

>>211981780
you mean himself

>>211981643
According to the CDC, 55% of people have sex before 18. Crank those numbers up a bit to account for 19 and the fact that gay dudes can get laid easier and that 73% figure starts to look pretty normal. At the very least, the vast majority of those are completely fine.

>>211981308
DEH

>Do you think he... you know...

>>211981114
>ranking literal shit as god-tier
>ranking great writing as lesser tier

Subhuman take

>>211981114
The kids are probably lucky Rowling vetoed Spielberg.

>>211982716
>falling for copypasta

>>211982716
How new are you?