Dumbledore is actually pretty different in the books. He's much more "wacky". Like the weird science teacher in high school that everyone likes.
Printable View
Dumbledore is actually pretty different in the books. He's much more "wacky". Like the weird science teacher in high school that everyone likes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowutopia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regus, one post above
You would do well to heed your own advice. Or do you think we all need to read the same exact information twice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowutopia
And once again, assuming people do not read because they don't read Harry Potter books of all things when there are more important texts out there, covering politics, history, and the like, is just stupid.
Your mom is an important history text.
And I added new information to the discourse. 234.
WU TANG CLAN AIN'T NOTHIN' TO FUCK WITH.
Notice that everything they cut was CGI, skewts, unicorns, sphinx, house elves
Not really, I just mentioned those things because they are some of my favourites.
The very first scene significantly alters the entire story. The omission of winky follows from that, but it's important to parts of Hermione's development and to continue that mystery of Barty Crouch.
Why am I bothering with this? Fuck this thread, it's goddamn Harry Potter. The books are decent, the movies are garbage. Read them for a good story. Watch the movies if you like CGI. I'm sober enough to sleep now. G'night.
You admit to reading Goosebumps, a series for 5 year olds. That, and the sub-juvenile post above pretty much says it all. Poopypants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowutopia
Rod Stewart: Pooped pants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
Nurse: What did you say Mister Stewart?
Rod Stewart: I pooped my pants.
I read them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
When I was 5.
Lies.
Fear Street was so much better than Goosebumps.