you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Rowling needs to fade into irrelevance

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago

    Yes, she does. It'd be great. But pretending an insanely influential piece of media doesn't exist doesn't help us or the trans movement. Harry potter can exist and we can enjoy our memories of it without further contributing to it and boycotting all future sales. Fuck jk, fuck the franchise at this point, and fuck trabsphobes in general and specific. But the movies exist, they were good, and I wouldn't spend a red cent on any any new HP material, but the memories are free.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    I downvoted them because they used the americanised version, instead of the correct version that's called Philosopher's Stone.

    I won't be party to allowing those yanks to rewrite history anymore. IT'S UNCONSCIONABLE! IT'S IMMORAL. IT SMELLS LIKE STINKY CHEESE!!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 13 hours ago (1 child)

    Wait really. Why the efff would that be something to change? I just always thought the editor let an inconsistency through

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 hours ago

    https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-18387,00.html

    https://www.goodreads.com/questions/3-why-did-they-choose-to-change-the-title

    It's either:
    That the decision makers in hollywood didn't think the original title had enough pizzazz so changed it to sorcerer to thrill it up a bit.
    Or that american kids/parents just wouldn't understand what the film was about from the title so dumbed it down for them.

  • source
  • parent