The video is about the top ten things Harry Potter fans can't agree on.... So, just things that fans bicker over basically. 😊 I've never noticed any strong infighting among the HP fan base like there is in other franchises so I don't know how contentious these things actually are. But, I love a good debate. So, I'll put in my two sense. The topics aren't ranked so I'll go in the order they're discussed in the video. (Not stopping to translate in-world words and phrases. If you want to know just ask and I'll be happy to answer.)
1. Barty Crouch Jr. was Hogwarts greatest DADA teacher.
I'm going to go with "no" on this one. Since he was doing a near perfect imitation of Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody for the entire term, he was undeniably cool. And he did end up giving the students a boost in their defensive magic skills that affected their abilities in their various battles. But, as the video points out as an argument for the "no" side, Crouch Jr. was a lunatic who didn't realize that he wasn't doing the bad guys' side any favors by teaching them so thoroughly. And he taught them illegal, dark curses which, though done with what appeared to be a good intentions as part of his act, was still essentially the same thing that Amycus Carrow was doing in the 7th book. Lupin was the best. If he'd been able to retain the position he'd have had them caught up and plenty advanced in time for their O.W.L.s, N.E.W.T.s, and the final showdown with Voldemort .
2. Draco Malfoy didn't deserve his redemption arc.
Yes. Yes, he did deserve it. Absent of abuse and trauma, most children have some degree of cockiness and selfishness. Because they're children. Draco's cockiness was bolstered by the fact that his family was independently wealthy and benefited from many powerful political connections. Draco wasn't evil. He was a bully. Most bullies grow up to find a little humility. Adulthood is the great equalizer.. A lot of things change when we have to buy our own tires, so to speak. And the series itself even touches on that when fleshing out James Potter. Draco's humbling began earlier than adulthood when he realized that killing in cold blood wasn't something he could do no matter what he thought he believed and then discovering that his family's money and connections were worthless after seeing his once important father in a servile position under Voldemort. And unlike the video suggests I don't think Draco was trying to finally do the right thing by not exposing Harry at Malfoy Manor. I think he was terrified, disillusioned, and wanting nothing more to do with any of it. I think if he could have apparated to another country and gone into hiding with muggle-borns he would have done that after the end of the 6th book. Too bad be didn't pay any closer attention to his apparition lessons than Harry did.
3. Harry Potter was kind of a wieny.
In my review of the 5th book I said in response to the complaints that the protagonist seemed too self absorbed that those who thought that don't remember what it's like to be 15 and angry. I'm one of the people who argues in favor of considering the pressure he's under. Having the responsibility of being a Chosen One is enough to make anyone self-conscious, especially when they're young. I think, in fairness, when you look at how he handled the situations thrown at him, his internal courage is on display all the time. Always under a microscope but never losing his cool. The second and fourth books set the best examples. Also, he was called out on a lot of his brooding behavior towards his friends in the 5th book. He may not have been as attentive of a friend since his plate was pretty full, but he always put them first when making the hard decisions.
4. Harry and Hermione should have been a couple.
I fall into the "no" camp on this one. However, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the "yes" side. Ultimately, it's "no" for me because Harry is a hero and his love interest should be enamored with him to a certain degree. Ginny always adored him and grew to be his equal without losing that admiration for him. Hermione, on the other hand, never saw him as anything but an equal. Even a curiosity at the beginning. Their friendship was built on mutually beneficial contention. Besides, Ron was raised with a domineering mother (in the best sense) and needed a strong woman to yank a knot in his tail now and then. Not unlike the way Molly kept Arthur in line when he was a little too interested in talking about his illegal flying car with the twins instead of upbraiding them about stealing it. That being said, I understand why this is a popular idea. Ginny's character was underdeveloped in the books. She wasn't even in Harry's greater circle of friends until the 5th one, so I can see how their relationship seemed to come out of nowhere. It was a little jarring, even for me. Then the movies turned Ron from a more complex and useful character in the books into a third-wheel, dead-weight buffoon along with adding romantic chemistry between Harry and Hermione that didn't exist in the books for no real reason except to satisfy the fans that liked to ship them together. It ends up being confusing for someone who is only a casual fan. Some argue that Rowling herself said she should have made them a couple but that was only after the books were completed and probably after a lot of protests from fans that would have preferred it that way. But I think she was smart to go with her first instinct and shouldn't question it.
5. Sirius Black was a poor godfather to Harry.
There only seems to be two anwers here. Either: Yes, he was a poor godfather because he used poor judgement and didn't try to see Harry more often. Or: No, he was still a good godfather because his poor judgement and inability to see Harry wasn't his fault. My answer is: Good thing he didn't HAVE to be Harry's godfather. He was named Harry's godfather when Harry was born but a newborn baby wasn't the center of his life. His best mates and the first war was. So when one of his friends betrayed him and had him sent to Azkaban to be mentally and emotionally violated by dementors for 12 years, it was only his knowledge of his own innocence that kept him from being driven insane. He escaped to save Harry but with no expectations from him due to his presumed guilt. Vengeance on Wormtail and possibly his own death in the process would have been good enough for him and at least as good as trying to convince a godchild he never met of his innocence. But the yeses and noes are both right in this case. If he'd been able serve as a surrogate parent to Harry after the 3rd book like he wanted to, he still wouldn't have used very good judgement after the years of damage and unresolved losses of friends and years. He would have needed a lot of therapy first. But, as things turned out he was just one of many adult influences around Harry. He did the right thing by not contacting him too much while he was on the lam. But, after he was in a safe place he was still in a sort of prison, so his his judgement was compromised by his feelings of uselessness compounded with the PTSD and even Harry knew it. He knew Sirius looked at him as though he had his best friend James back again and didn't take his advice to heart like he would a godparent. Otherwise, he wouldn't have so quickly dismissed the most useful thing Sirius gave him - the two way mirror.
6. Neville Longbottom should have been the Chosen One.
I mean, they're not wrong! One of my favorite parts of the series was finding out that Neville could have been the Chosen One except that it was Voldemort who chose his own bane. He was a half-blood himself so obsessed with blood purity that he chose the boy that came from a muggle-born witch thinking he'd be a bigger threat. And that's why it's best that it was Harry. It was the extra kick in the head Voldemort deserved. Could have been Neville but still should have been Harry. And Neville got to prove his heroism too in the end. Really it was a win-win.
7. Dumbledore should have killed Tom riddle as a child.
Oh come on, seriously? Must be the same line of reasoning that states that if time travel was real, then we should go back and kill Hitler as a child. Apart from the atrocity of killing a child, the answer is always "no" to this is because Hitler wasn't the only one who believed what he did. There was a network of people around him that also believed as he did. If he didn't survive to adulthood, someone else would have filled that void and history wouldn't have been much different. The same goes for a fictional Dark Lord, even though the magical world is greatly simplified from real life.
8. Albus Dumbledore was more evil than good.
Ah yes, the clarion call of deconstructionists everywhere. Good doesn't really exist because if it did then evil would have consequences. So, even good is technically evil, therefore we can't judge. So naturally, if a hero is realistically flawed then he isn't actually good. Does that about sum it up? Dumbledore was definitely more good than evil. He had a dark past that he paid dearly high prices for. But he had the opportunity to spend the majority of his life doing good things, promoting good ideals, and working for good causes, and he and he took that opportunity. Did he have underlying flaws that caused him to make bad calls even during his good years? Yes. They caused his own mortal wound. But, just because nobody is perfect doesn't mean that goodness is impossible or unattainable. As for raising Harry up as a lamb for the slaughter, let's face it, after all the time and research he put into it, he probably knew that the killing curse from Voldemort wouldn't work as expected but he couldn't tell anyone that because it would have spoiled the protective charm the action would initiate. He was a leader with a lot of responsibility that had to take great risks to himself and others while making the hard decisions. Sometimes that makes leaders seem cold and inhuman at times. And Harry had to start behaving that way too after Dobby died and he finally grew up enough to take on the full responsibility Dumbledore left to him. Dumbledore was good and he arranged for the good to succeed after he was dead making him more good than evil
9. Severus Snape was a hero.
Okay, I'll admit this one is a little tricky. There are a lot of very valid reasons to make the claim that he was not a hero. I think it all boils down to how forgiving you are. I won't go into dissecting whether or not his feelings for Lily Evans Potter were really love or just an unhealthy obsession. I'll accept that he loved her. Were his feelings for her alone enough to ascribe the designation of "hero" to him? Because that seemed to be his only motivation. It's hard to grant a redemption arc to a character that's only there because he has to be. He was a terrible person and he never grew to be anything but a terrible person. He despised Harry and despised his own role as one of Harry's guardians. But he stayed the course. He made a choice to ally himself with the good guys and stuck with that choice for 17 years and even took the substantial risk of being a double agent. Why did he feel like he had to? He didn't actually have to participate. Someone else in his place may have even chosen suicide. It's not like Lily could come back to forgive him. And he couldn't forgive Harry for being James Potter's son. But, he mostly couldn't forgive himself and despised himself more than Harry. His guilt from the part he played in Lily's death was likely his driving motivation. Does that excuse him from being a horrible person? No, but I'm not entirely sure he was as horrible as he came off, or even wanted to be. First, because he did choose to do the right thing and fight for the right side. Secondly, because in the memory we see of him talking to the painting of Phineas Nigellus, he puts the former Headmaster in check for calling Hermione a mud-blood. So, clearly enough of a change had occurred that he could have become a better person. My read on the character is that he couldn't hate himself enough to punish himself for Lily's death and he needed everyone else in his world to hate him too. So, he either consciously or subconsciously made it happen. Yet he died keeping his word. He's probably not the textbook definition of a hero but he's a hero to all the people who will never be able to climb up out of their depression, yet continue to live and fight through life anyway.
10. Books vs. Movies
This is absurd.. 😂 😂 Of course, the books are better. Even people who aren't HP fans know the books are always better. But does that mean that the movies were bad? Oh my, no. The movies did a great job especially considering all the material that had to be condensed. Cutting, splicing, and additions are bound to happen. Some of the decisions worked well. At least as many worked as didn't. And the casting was good enough to make up for what was missing. I'd like to think that everyone who thinks the books are better also have that sort of appreciation for the movies.
https://youtu.be/gOJ0YE1qwuA
