No spell is going to fix these moments any time soon.
Keep in mind:
- Sign your entries
- One moment per book or movie to a troper, if multiple entries are signed to the same troper the more recent one will be cut.
- Moments only, no "just everything he said, " "The entire book" entries.
- No contesting entries. This is subjective, the entry is their opinion.
- No natter. As above, anything contesting an entry will be cut, and anything that's just contributing more can be made its own entry.
- Explain why it's a Dethroning Moment Of Suck.
- No Real Life examples including Executive Meddling and
Fan Dumb. That is just asking for trouble. - No ALLCAPS, no bold, and no italics unless it's the title of a work. We are not yelling the DMoSs out loud.
The Books
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone
- Law and Disorder: The treatment of Slytherin was a deal breaker for me even in the first book. Even reading it as a child I recognized that everyone in the school treated an entire quarter of the student body as pariahs. Wins are taken away from them or boo'd relentlessly, they're constantly reminded they're the 'evil' house, and this behavior goes all the way up to the headmaster (Dumbledore went out of his way to participate in this, making it clear he was taking away the House Cup earned through grades and good behavior because Harry and his buddies did things against school rules and after the contest was closed). When it's made obvious that everyone will hate them no matter what they do, and adults will not only not protect them but encourage and actively participate in the abuse, it's just self-fulfilling prophecy that they're going to act out and join organizations that shun the wizarding members who harassed them.
- PugBuddies: Going off of what the above troper said, nowhere is the treatment of Slytherin more evident than the moment Harry refuses to shake Draco's hand on the train. Yes, Draco had made a terrible first impression, introducing himself as an elitist Jerkass before he even got around to giving his name. Yet instead of being the bigger person, Harry coldly rebuffs him. While we're expected to cheer, imagine this scene from Draco's perspective: He's from one of the most powerful families in the Wizarding World, and knows it, and he has offered friendship to the new kid, who seems to be making all the wrong choices on his first day. He's been told all his life to stay away from "the wrong sort," as they're a bad influence, and probably also that these witches and wizards will hate him simply because they're the wrong sort. Congratulations, Harry, you just proved every single one of Lucius Malfoy's terrible life lessons right. This doesn't excuse Draco's behavior, but when it comes to hating Harry Potter—who goes on to be beloved by most of the school for simply existing, and let off the hook for things that would earn any other student a detention—can you blame him?
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire:
- The Lucky Cat: I'm a big fan of this series and I read it growing up. However, nothing is perfect and re-reading the books as I got older, more problems became obvious. One thing that really pissed me off in this book? Mrs. Weasley's treatment of Hermione. To put into context, the novel's recurring annoyance, Rita Skeeter, continuously publishes slanderous articles throughout the book, mostly about Harry. For a portion of the book, Rita implies that Hermione is in a Love Triangle with Harry and Krum and is stringing both boys along, which is Blatant Lies for anybody who knows the characters even a little bit and is done because Rita has a petty grudge against Hermione. Yet a lot of people in the Wizarding World fall for it and send poor Hermione hate mail, including one that makes her fingers swell up with bubotubar pus. Who also swallows these articles? Mrs. Weasley, the epitome of maternity in the entire goddamn franchise, pointedly snubs Hermione and does very passive-aggressive gestures like sending Harry and Ron chocolate and none for her. She only stops when Harry flat-out tells her that Rita was lying, and she starts being nice to Hermione again. Um, no. Mrs. Weasley owed Hermione a goddamn apology for indirectly Slut-Shaming her based on the articles printing by a notorious hack and for not bothering to get her side (though admittedly she at least did this out of motherly concern for Harry and not because she shipped Hermione with Ron), but both Hermione and the narrative just let this slide because Mrs. Weasley had "good intentions." After this, Mrs. Weasley came off like a Bitch in Sheep's Clothing for a while afterwards.
- HyponticFlake: To be fair, Hermione did get chocolate - it was just ridiculously smaller than Ron and Harry's.
- Gess: The SPEW sub-plot. If there could be a more insulting, tactless, off-handed way to tackle a sensitive and controversial topic, I'm not aware of it. Wizarding society has the practice of keeping elven slaves who are conditioned to obey their masters, find delight in serving them, abhor freedom, punish themselves for failing a task, and is not limited to corrupt and stuck-in-the-mud nobles, but is widespread and common. So it falls to the non-wizborn Hermione, a brilliant emissary of the more enlightened and advanced world, to get to the bottom of this issue and probably rectify it... Nah, let's just turn the whole deal into a fucking joke! Let's have Hermione come up with a stupid-sounding acronym (apparently, without realising it), act like an annoying, obsessive, self-righteous shit-stirrer, never bother to properly research the case and try to release the elves against their "will", thus looking even more deluded and in the wrong. And then, after the joke has served its purpose, let's forget all about it!
- Fluffything: The whole subplot turned Hermione from the smart girl (who sometimes wanders into Insufferable Genius territory) to a Know-Nothing Know-It-All Free the Frogs type character. It's such an utterly OOC moment for Hermione that there's no way it could be used for anything other than as a poorly-written joke. You'd think JK Rowling would handle the subject with more sensitivity, and would have Hermione handle the situation with care and thorough research on the subject. Nope, it's treated as a joke. The joke is that Hermione is trying to free slaves.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix:
- Ecojosh1: I hate the jinx that Hermione put on Marietta. Hermione secretly puts a jinx on a piece of paper that all DA members sign. When Marietta betrays the DA, the jinx doesn't give her amnesia or otherwise prevent her from betraying them. Instead, it disfigures her so the word "sneak" is permanently written on her face. I can understand the heroes wanting to identify the traitor, but disfiguring someone is horrible. If Hermione had warned people about the jinx, it might have deterred her from betraying them. But keeping it a secret takes away the deterrent aspect of the jinx and just makes it vindictive.
- Zeta42: You think that's bad? How about Hermione luring Umbridge into the Forbidden Forest, where it's strongly implied she got raped by centaurs? There's no way Hermione the know-it-all wouldn't know what the centaurs would do to Umbridge. Frankly, Umbridge was much worse than Marietta, but damn. Book 5 reveals Hermione has a darker side to her.
- Maths Angelic Version: I second that. I think it's bad for three reasons. 1: Umbridge may end up with debilitating psychological problems like PTSD. Not even she deserves that. 2: It's hard or impossible to predict how she'll react. She may struggle with previously mentioned disorders for the rest of her life (made worse by the fact that I can't imagine her going to a therapist), or she may recover relatively quickly. 3: It most likely won't prevent her from committing future evil deeds unless she's Driven to Suicide because of it (which I can't imagine either).
- Remtar85: What makes this an even bigger DMOS is Rowling's explanation for it after admitting that Marietta's scars never really healed. Her reasoning? She "loathes a traitor". So basically her reasoning is that if a kid is a tattletale, they deserve to be scarred for life? What the hell?!
- ScotieRw: To add to the issue of the jinx Hermione creates, at no point is this treated as "She betrayed us to Voldemort". It's only treated as a bunch of school children pissed off at their classmate for telling a teacher about their secret club.
- Garfield2710: And do you know how they could've prevented Marietta from telling Umbridge about the DA? How about actually telling everyone they were signing a cursed paper that would've deformed their faces if they told anyone, which would make them far less likely to "snitch" (assuming of course they weren't under Veritaserum). I thought Hermione was supposed to be intelligent for her age.
- HypnoticFlake: And what if they were under Veritaserum? Anyone could have been hit with that SNEAK hex for the rest of their lives for something they had no fault in - including Hermione herself.
- thunderchild120: "The whole point of a deterrent is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't she tell the DA, eh?!"
- VanHohenheimOfXerxes: Again, the Marietta bullshit. Even at the age of ten, I thought that was fucked up. I recently realized that it's exactly what Fire Lord Ozai did to punish his son's "disloyalty." At least Ozai was established as a bad guy and got his comeuppance. No such luck with Hermione. (I was also reading the Order of the Phoenix YMMV page, and someone else pointed out that what Hermione did is also eerily similar to what Umbridge of all people did - remember that "I must not tell lies" bit?)
- PugBuddes: Hermione's dark side, as revealed by her treatment of Marietta and Umbridge, wouldn't have bothered me as much if each of those incidents had been treated as a case of Disproportionate Retribution, or at the very least as a mistake she came to regret. What bothered me about them was the fact that, both in-universe and out, they're treated as Hermione giving those characters their Laser-Guided Karma. In Real Life, leaving a teacher to be brutally gang-raped and permanently scarring a classmate would be treated as evidence of a deep character flaw, if not a disturbing psychological disorder. But Hermione is treated like she did something great in each instance. Protagonist-Centered Morality, much?
- Exxolon: Ron's comment about doctors being "those Muggle nutters that cut people up" always pissed me off. While in universe this is meant to indicate Ron's ignorance about the non-wizarding world Harry doesn't correct him. Remember, this is a book that kids of age seven or so might read, so giving them the impression that doctors are Knife Nuts who like cutting people apart might cause a phobia of seeing the doctor. One has to wonder if JK has some issue with the medical profession.
- KoolKoopaGirl: I actually didn't mind OotP much, however there is one thing that always got to me. All characterization of Harry Potter up until that point is betrayed. He's now a Wangsty teenager who seems to hate everyone, his own best friends included. I'm not saying OotP was awful, it actually did a lot of things right. But I won't deny it could've done its protagonist better. (Then again, I may have fallen victim to So Bad, It's Good...)
- Narita90: The revelation in book five that while Lily's Heroic Sacrifice to protect baby Harry from Voldemort used The Power of Love, the charm required Harry to be sent to live with the Dursleys because he needed to live with a blood relative of Lily's in order for the protections to actually work. The Dursley family is nothing short of horrific in the level of abuse they dish onto Harry, yet they're the only people Harry can live safely with, while Sirius and/or the Weasleys, both of whom love Harry dearly, wouldn't be able to keep the protection spell, for literally no reason besides that they weren't biologically related. For how much the series stresses the importance of love's power and that sometimes it's a heart, not biology, that makes a family - to say nothing of why blood purity doesn't matter - this is quite possibly the worst example of the story not practicing what it preaches. And it brings up the question of why Dumbledore, who surely had some level of knowledge regarding the situation courtesy of Mrs. Figg, never did so much as arrange for someone to be sent and warn Vernon and Petunia, especially since he was most likely involved in social services not being alerted.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince:
- K9feline5: On the train back to Hogwarts, Harry sees Marietta and smirks because she still has the jinx. 'Til then, I hadn't been inclined to be sympathetic to her, but this one brief moment shocked and repulsed me out of the narrative. It effectively destroyed the possibility that there was a magic healer available to Marietta and her family who could remove the jinx from Order Of The Pheonix, and left in doubt any chance that any of it would fade. So this extremely minor, voiceless character who committed a single bad deed that failed will have that deed emblazoned across her face for all to see, forever. Other characters who did much worse are forgiven, but Marietta is not.
- StormRequiem: Something that has always bothered me is the way the Ron/Lavender "relationship" is handled. Obviously, I wasn't expecting them to end up together at the end of the series or anything like that, but the way Ron treats Lavender disgusts me. Yes, she's annoying and clingy, but she's a sixteen-year-old girl in a new relationship. It's obvious she likes Ron more than he likes her and he basically snogs her repeatedly to prove something to everyone and make Hermione jealous. I recall Rowling saying something like she paired the two of them together because Hermione had a lot more relationship experience than Ron and she felt at that point he didn't "deserve Hermione"... So, to make him "worthy", she has him date a girl he obviously doesn't have genuine romantic feelings for, lead her on, then inevitably dump her for Hermione. And he doesn't even have the balls to actually do it to her face, he just lets her see him with Hermione and waits for her to break it off herself. How exactly does that make Ron "worthy" to date anybody?
- akanesarumara Connected tangentially to the above, Snape's reaction to seing proof that Harry has his old potions book. He left the book, which he knew to include potentially dangerous curses such as Sectumsempra (which Harry admitted later that if he had known what it actually did, he would have never ever even thought of using it, not even on Malfoy) just lying around and when Harry uses it the detention he picks is to remind him again (as if anyone needed reminding) how much Snape hated James Potter.
- tafelshrew And connected to that, Harry, after slashing Draco's chest to ribbons and nearly killing him, is annoyed that Snape's detentions are keeping him away from a Quidditch match and later from Ginny. You almost killed your ineffectual rival, Harry; that's a bit more serious than missing a sports game and having less time with your girlfriend!
- thatsnumberwang: Let's analyze the series of events here: Romilda Vane tries to essentially slip Harry a roofie and absolutely nothing happens to her whatsoever; despite the fact that Hermione the Prefect knows full well that she did it. And let's not kid ourselves, she is a hormonally-charged teenager and he is the most famous boy alive; the chances of Harry being forced to do something disgusting against his will are huge. This from the series that permanently disfigured Marietta for less, the fact that Rowling decided to let Vane get off completely free from what was arguably an attempted sexual assault is incredibly jarring.
- DestinedJedi87: Seconded. What truly moves this moment from bad to unforgivable comes much later on when one is left wondering... would the same situation be played up for laughs if their genders were reversed?
- It gets even more jarring that this is played for laughs when one remembers that it is revealed in the same book that this scenario (a woman slipping the man she desired the wizard equivalent of roofies for years) is exactly how Voldemort came to be. So it's all fun and laughs unless the result is a genocidal maniac? What?
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:
- Theenglishman: Remus Lupin trying to abandon his pregnant wife. Interestingly, Lupin's behaviour could be seen as an in-universe Dethroning Moment of Suck in Harry's eyes. Lupin had slowly become more deranged and paranoid since Voldemort's return, and combined with the guilt of both marrying Tonks and the chance that his son might be a werewolf, it culminated in Lupin's offer to join the Power Trio. Harry, realizing that Lupin had completely lost it, called him out and told him to grow a fucking pair, after which Lupin bolted from Grimmauld Place with his tail between his legs. True to the DMOS formula, it is the absolute nadir of his character and when we see Lupin next, he has indeed become more of a family man.
- timrulez: What pissed me off was Lupin dying in the Battle of Hogwarts. After he took Harry's words to heart and became a devoted father, he and Tonks died later on, ironically orphaning his son, despite Harry's best attempts to keep the family together. If Lupin had left his family like he planned, he wouldn't have died. It's like Rowling is punishing him for deciding to be a good father, not to mention the guilt that Harry must have felt for reprimanding him, even if he did the right thing by calling out his former teacher.
- Samadhir: Near the end of Deathly Hallows, before the final battle of Hogwarts, Voldemort sends a message to the school that if they hand over Harry, they will all be spared destruction. This leads to Pansy Parkinson, a Slytherin, to immediately state that they should give in to his demand without a word of protest from any other Slytherin, nor any agreement from any non-Slytherin, prompting McGonagall and members of the other houses to immediately throw her and the entire Slytherin house out from the school. This moment has always angered me because it could have been an awesome and moving moment for Slytherin if they had chosen to stand with their schoolmates and brethren, and finally earn some genuine respect from them. Instead, they're all shown to be cowardly backstabbers to the very end. It was a completely wasted opportunity for Rowling.
- gallantmon son of darkness: I believe it was a dethroner because of them being thrown out of the school. I mean, they're a bunch of middle- and high-schoolers, of course they would choose to do that out of fear alone. How would they not be scared out of their minds when they're up against what is pretty much wizard-Hitler? What that poor excuse of a teacher should have done was either encourage them or give them a way to back out.
- Rhysdux: Actually, that scene is even worse than Samadhir mentioned, because Pansy was the only person who said that they should turn Harry over to Voldemort. Immediately, the Hufflepuffs, Ravenclaws and Gryffindors all formed a wall between Harry and the Slytherin table and drew their wands... even though no one at the Slytherin table, including Pansy, was attacking Harry or was even threatening to do so. And given what spells witches and wizards can cast with their wands, the Slytherins were suddenly faced with all of their schoolmates drawing the magical equivalent of loaded guns and pointing the guns at them. Because one person cried out in panic. Then McGonagall treated the Slytherins as if they were a hive mind and were incapable of disagreeing with Pansy and threw them ALL out—odd behavior, given that at least one member of the Order (Andromeda Tonks) was in Slytherin. Finally, almost all fans end up blaming the Slytherins for being cowards and not fighting against Voldemort... when they never had a choice in the matter. What was that you were saying in the second book about our choices determining who we are, Rowling?
- Shadow 200: Agreed. Honestly, it's actions like this as well as what they did to Marietta (who was likely tortured as well and forced to admit) and Cho that makes me wonder just why I should be supporting our *cough* Protagonists with the way they act. Not one Slytherin is ever allowed to be shown to be a decent fellow or in a positive light, EVER. All because Ambition Is Evil. So wanting to do great things and to improve yourself and your family is evil? Well, if that's the case Then Let Me Be Evil.
- Lupine Moon: Related to the above, the fact that all the evil characters are in Slytherin: Umbridge, the Malfoys, the Blacks (with the exception of Andromeda and Regulus, but they hardly count), the other Death Eaters save Pettigrew. Not to mention, Harry ruining his "It doesn't matter to us" with regards to his son being Sorted into Slytherin with 'but if if it matters to you, you can ask the Hat to Sort you into another House".
- The Adept Rogue: The final battle between Harry and Voldemort is a huge DMOS to me. I mean, the hero finally faces the Big Bad in one final showdown, and all that happens is Harry delivers a "The Reason You Suck" Speech to Voldie, who refuses to listen. Both cast a spell, and Voldie dies. One of the most anti-climatic Final Battles I've ever read.
- Rippenfan 33: The circumstances behind the aforementioned death. Now, I'll admit I don't fully understand the rules, but as I understand it, the Elder Wand bonds with its owner until they die, and then if someone new takes possession of it, they become its new owner and it bonds with them, but only if they take the wand in a certain way. So Draco gets the wand after Dumbledore dies, then Harry takes it from Draco, then Voldy takes it from Harry after he "kills" him, but apparently he took it in the wrong way, so it's still bonded to Harry, and reflects his own Cruturus Curse back on him. This sounds like a very convenient Contrived Coincidence so that Harry doesn't have to get his hands dirty and actually kill Voldemort himself, and, while it is nice that Voldy is undone because of his own hubris, it seems less satisfying that he gets defeated because of weird wand rule BS.
- Commosensus: After reading it again, the last book seriously beats you over the head with the whole "Harry Potter is Jesus" theme. There's the obvious "dies to save humanity/defeat evil, then revives" thing, for starters. Then while he's dead or whatever he has a conversation with Dumbledore in which the latter flat out says that Harry is perfectly good/sinless (I only have a translation so I'm not entirely sure exactly how he puts it, but it's there). The part that infuriates me the most though, is when he confronts Voldemort and essentially says "Denounce your evil ways, or you are doomed to suffer eternally in the afterlife", then when Voldemort shockingly goes "nope" that gives him the green light to kill him. What. First of all, how was Voldemort expected to take this seriously? From what he knows, nothing stops him from taking over the world when Harry tells him it will be bad if he doesn't stop, and there's no reason to think he isn't bluffing. Second, how is this supposed to make him see the error of his ways and repent? It seems more like a threat or insult than anything else and gives absolutely no arguments beyond that. Is it any wonder that he doesn't consider it? This just makes Harry look extremely hypocritical, giving Voldemort a last chance he knew there was no reason for him to accept. Also, what if Voldemort did accept? What would Harry do then? Say "Apology accepted" and let a mass-murderer go free? Lock him in Azkaban and hope he was being honest, because otherwise it would be children's play for him to escape? Kill him and go "but at least now he can go to Heaven"? No matter how you look at it, the whole thing is just plain stupid. I know that's something that is used a lot in this type of story, but it really annoys me, and I would expect better from Harry Potter.
- Wanda Ginny Greenleaf 1500: May be a bit controversial, but the fact that Harry forgives Dumbledore so easily after he 'dies'. After all the incredibly harmful, manipulative things he's done, including effectively nurturing Harry to commit suicide throughout the series, the fact that he gets off with nothing but a smack on the wrist (Harry tries to comfort him, for God's sake!) left an incredibly bad taste in my mouth. I always had a problem with Dumbledore's uber omniscience, but cold-bloodedly planning Harry's death on the slim chance that the horcruxes are destroyed and this would end Voldemort was too much for me.
- akanesarumara: I recently reread it and when I got to the King's Cross chapter I too was hoping for Harry to mention the tiny fact that, oh yeah, Dumbledore was raising him like a pig for slaughter and even the kindness he showed Harry previously could be explained as a way to make Harry do what Dumbledore wants him to. Nope. No calling out at all.
- Nhaz Ul: Ron's lack of resistance to the Locket's manipulations. After seven years of being Overshadowed by Awesome as Harry's sidekick and constantly hitting the Sidekick Glass Ceiling by being disabled and out of the action almost every time the trio were on an adventure, Ron still hadn't come to terms with that. Supposedly, he should have learned his lesson in Book 4 when he had a row with Harry over the exact same thing, and put up a fight against the locket. Instead Ron succumbs to the point of abandoning his friends, showing no Character Development from Book 1 to mid-Book 7 (after he leaves).
- Animeking 1108: My problem was how Hermione reacted when he returned. After feeling remorse for his actions and even risking his life for Harry, Hermione beats up Ron. Say what you will about the bird incident in HBP, but at least that had a justifiable reason. Here, Ron wasn't entirely at fault. He succumbed to the Horcrux like the One Ring. To really rub salt in the wound, Ron is the one who has to apologize and win her back. That's comparable to a battered housewife saying she deserved to get hit for not cooking dinner on time.
- Screaming Nyet 1: This is really minor compared to everyone else's, but for me, it was the moment when, after six books of the same Running Gag about Bill's long hair and Mrs. Weasley wanting to cut it - which was mildly amusing - all of a sudden, in the seventh book, Mrs. Weasley is forcing a son into a chair and announcing that he's going to get a proper haircut. Is it Bill? No! It's Charlie, who was never described as having long hair before - not even a half-hearted explanation like, "Charlie - who had been growing his hair out because he liked Bill's style - was forced into a chair and..." No. We're just supposed to suddenly accept that, after six books of being the brother with the ponytail, Bill has suddenly cut his hair off and transplanted it onto Charlie's head. And it wasn't a simple name error, either, because there's two more references to Charlie's new, "brutally short" haircut in the book! Why?! If there's one thing that really bugs me, it's bleeping continuity errors.
- batmany: There is one moment in the book that, while admittedly pretty cool, ends up also being a moment that aggravates me to no end due to the sheer contradictory nature of it. The moment? When Harry, Ron, and Hermione escape from Gringott's on the back of a Ukrainian Ironbelly dragon. Now, the "dragon riding" aspect isn't the DMOS as the book clearly shows that riding a giant flying reptile probably wouldn't be the most pleasant experience. Rather, it comes from when the dragon is still chained up and guarding the vault. See, the books have reminded us again and again that dragons are wild animals that are impossible to train and domesticate. But, in this book, we see that this dragon has been conditioned to react to the sound of clanging swords by retreating (Long story short, it was taught to associate clanging swords with being burned by hot irons). For those who haven't caught on yet, having an animal conditioned to respond to a certain stimulus is a form of training. So, what? Dragons cannot be trained unless by the cruelest and most painful methods possible?
- CatMuto: The horrendous attempt of Harry's to see if Voldemort would have some remorse for his actions, before the two battle. While I am aware that the series is still a children's series, even with the audience having grown up and older as Harry did, the absolute black-white views of things was off-putting. Voldemort has proven again and again that he does not feel remorse. He doesn't feel bad for anything he did, and even gave Draco a mission that he knew Draco would never actually finish, just to emotionally torture Lucius for a previous failure. And yet Harry thinks he can still get Voldemort to admit to any remorse? Voldemort is so far down the Moral Event Horizon, he gleefully dived past it ages ago. Perhaps JK Rowling was trying to portray the message that "Nobody is beyond redemption"... except the entire scene of Harry talking to Dumbledore in the previous chapter was Dumbledore basically saying that Voldemort was beyond redemption.
- Pug Buddies: Harry's complete lack of empathy for Draco just becomes more and more grating with each reread. On a surface level, I get it. Draco was a bully, and a racist Jerkass. For the first five books, I didn't like him any more than Harry did. But by the end of DH, Draco has suffered a nervous breakdown, shown himself to be unable to kill someone even under duress, been forced to torture someone (the implication being that he was punished for his inability to do so), and generally treated like crap by Voldemort and everyone but his parents. He even pretended not to recognize Harry when he got himself, Ron, and Hermione captured and brought to Malfoy Manor, an action that probably made Voldemort pretty angry. By the time Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle confront the Trio in the Room of Requirement, Harry was well aware of the desperate situation his rival was in. Yet Harry never even acknowledges this. He never experiences an ounce of sympathy for what Draco is being forced to do, or wonders if his actions at Malfoy Manor landed him in trouble. No, all that matters is Harry's problems and what Harry is going through. When Ron punches Draco unconscious and calls him a bastard, we're expected to cheer, but by this point, Draco has undergone such serious Villain Decay that he comes across as a Jerkass Woobie at the very worst, a plain old Woobie at best. Also remember that this is after Harry slashed his chest to ribbons after catching him in a nervous breakdown, after Dumbledore basically gave him false hope in the tower scene (if you offer to hide someone's family in the middle of a battle, with known terrorists climbing the stairs, they probably won't have time to accept), and after Harry witnessed firsthand Draco's terror and hesitation at handing him over to Voldemort. Harry "I Put Myself in Danger to Save Others Even When It's Not Strictly Necessary" Potter should have felt at least a little empathy, even if it took the form of Condescending Compassion, yet he shows more sympathy for Voldemort, the remorseless genocidal maniac, than he does for Draco. Why? Because Draco annoyed and inconvenienced Harry, used his family's money and connections to help his Quidditch team, and sued a bird. Harry's attitude reeked of Protagonist-Centered Morality, and I lost most of my sympathy for him.
- aziuka: Some readers lamented the tacked-on ending to the series, and frankly, they are right. Our heroes are now all prim and proper family people, being married to their childhood sweethearts (because, as we all know, teen romance lasts forever) and rearing children, just like every responsible adult should do; they are working their dream jobs, all is well. It's forced, overly-sweet and unbelievable to the point of ridiculousness - I almost expected them to move to Privet Drive at that point.
Harry Potter and the Cursed Child:
- Silverblade 2: God this play really is a glorified fanfiction, but if I had to pick up the worst moment it would be this one: by saving Cedric Diggory's life, Scorpius and Albus accidentally cause a Bad Future where Voldemort rules the world. How did it happen? Apparently Cedric Diggory became resentful of Harry for losing the Triwizard Tournament, became a Death Eater and killed Neville during the Battle of Hogwarts... Wait, Cedric Diggory? The Nice Guy who was nothing but friendly toward Harry and even was willing to share his victory with him? That's one of the worst cases of Character Derailment I ever saw. Ron the Death Eater might be officially renamed Cedric The Death Eater.
- Enhas: I liked how time travel was presented in Prisoner of Azkaban, but yeah, this entire book reads like something lifted straight from FanFiction.Net. So if Cedric lives, the entire series will go exactly the same up to the very end of Deathly Hallows, where he will show up to kill Neville just before he can kill the snake. Thus Voldemort remains invincible and kills Harry and everyone else fighting against him, winning the war. This goes against the entire ending of Goblet of Fire, where Cedric's death was presented as both being horrible and a senseless waste, to now being absolutely necessary. At least the myriad fan fictions where Ron turns evil tend to be entertaining (for all the wrong reasons), but this is just a slap in the face and quite poor writing. And unfortunately, canon to boot.
- PugBuddies: It's hard to pin down just one Dethroner, but the first hint I was in for a hot mess was the rumor that Scorpius is Voldemort's son. Leaving aside all of the logistical implausibilities (and the fact that if Draco could travel back to the War, he'd probably just tell his younger self to grab his mom and flee the country), this implies that there is no way to prove Draco is his father. So let me get this straight: The Wizarding World, a society with a spell to freeze fire and a potion that's essentially liquid luck, doesn't have a paternity test? You honestly expect me to believe that a group of people who consider surgery to be backward and barbaric don't have a method of determining who is the father of a child? My Willing Suspension of Disbelief went straight out the window, hailed a cab, and hasn't been seen since.
- Julia 1984: I vote for the fact that Voldemort fathered a child. That doesn't just make you roll your eyes at how silly it is or raise your eyebrows as you realize how much it reminds you of a fan fic you've read — it goes against the essential nature of the character: his disdain for having any connection to another human being. Voldemort having sexual intercourse with anyone, wanting a child, or thinking having a child could serve some purpose is as out of character for him as it's possible to be! He couldn't even bear the thought of a barman having the same name as him; physically linking himself either to a woman or a child would be just as unbearable. He understands physical attraction, but he would never stoop to such shameful weakness himself. The entire story relies on violating/ignoring the very essence of the main villain, the very nature of what he was and how his mind worked — only by disregarding that can the story happen. That's perfectly acceptable for a fan work that explores "What if this one thing were different and other possibilities like this opened up?" but not for official work that is supposed to be consistent with its series and everything that's been established about its world and characters.
- Tyrekecorrea: Honestly, Cursed Child is a slapdash piece of work that largely serves to make good characters far more villainous than they ever were in the book series, thereby ruining them forever. For instance, Amos Diggory was never so mean. When you read this entry, you can feel that there was less of an effort put into it than we've grown accustomed to. It makes one really miss Rowling.
- aziuka: While this play was clearly meant to be a quick cash-grab that runs on the power of nostalgia, and I could quote almost the entirety of it, I'd go with the moment when Ron briefly sees Albus with Delphi in the moonlight, and he concludes that Albus must have used the love potion to seduce her. And Ron's clearly okay with this situation, even proud of his nephew. I repeat: Ron, a supposedly good guy, okay with a young teenage boy drugging an overage woman into loving him. It's especially baffling that he of all people would give someone a love potion since he was a victim of this magical date rape drug as a teenager.
The Film Franchise (Wizarding World)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
- Andariel: That utterly idiotic scene at the very beginning where Harry is practicing Lumos Maxima on Privet Drive. Even though it's been established that using magic in muggle world is forbidden for children!
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
- Retloclive: The film's adaptation of the Quidditch World Cup has always felt off to me. All that pregame build-up showing off the stadium and the two World Cup teams... and then the movie just skips to Harry and company partying in their tent after the game was done. For me, this felt like a failed attempt at knowing what to keep, and what to cut out, regarding a book adaptation; skipping from A to C without showing anything that existed at B. There wasn't even the decency of a brief montage to show off some of the major events that went down in the World Cup game, or even a highlight of Victor Krum to hype the character up for the eventual Triwizard Tournament. There was nothing. If it wasn't for the fact that the Quidditch World Cup isn't part of the main Story Arc, I'd feel even more ripped off not getting to see any of it.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
- TacoNinja: The film version of Order of the Phoenix had a huge one that nearly ruined the rest of the films for my family. Professor Umbridge breaks into the Room of Requirement... No really, what the fuck?! The RoR is a room created and protected by very powerful magic, it cannot be fucking smashed into like a bank vault. This one moment even made my mother write an angry letter decrying David Yates, the director of the last few movies, for making a load of stupid plot-holes and leaving out some of the really awesome parts in the book, like the extent of Fred and Georges' fucking with Umbridge.
- CatMuto: I could list so many things wrong with this movie alone, but I'm going to focus on this one. How the movie portrayed Harry's personality. Now, I am well aware that Harry's attitude in the book was very divisive for most readers. Personally, I liked it. He was a teenager, and had a very good reason for being sullen and quick to anger. I can't think of many people who would go through what Harry did, likely suffering from PTSD because of it, and still being happy-happy. But the movie completely removed his personality and made him actually rather whiny, in my opinion. Instead of egging his cousin on, when Dudley talks down to Harry in front of his gang, all Harry says is, "Shut up". Wow, way to go, Harry, because that certainly worked the last decade. And instead of portraying him with his anxiety of feeling a snake awaken in himself, they make him have visions/hallucinations of Voldemort standing at the platform and doing a head-twitch, like some emo music video? Am I supposed to still consider Voldemort a terrible and terrifying person or am I supposed to laugh at him? This was just more proof to me that the movies stopped caring about actually adapting the book series faithfully, and were more concerned with making cool effects and cuts. This was the movie that broke my back, and I refused to watch the other movies.
- CJ Croen 1393: For me, it's Cho's accidental betrayal of Dumbledore's Army, primarily because she really didn't do anything wrong. Now don't get me wrong, I don't mind the fact that they made Cho the traitor rather than Marietta, I think it was an interesting angle. But the way they did it was awful. For context, Cho resisted any and all attempts at interrogation... until Umbridge forced her to take a Truth Serum, which forced her to tell her where the DA was. So it wasn't really Cho's fault, but everyone acts as though she's this horrible traitor and Harry is so disgusted that he can't even look at her. And to add insult to injury, this is pretty much the last we see of her. It all comes off less as a plot twist/point and more as a cheap attempt at getting the Harry/Cho subplot out of the way.
- Elysium 94: In all fairness, there is a scene later in the film which at least tries to address this problem. When Umbridge demands more of said Truth Serum from Snape to use on Harry, Snape remarks that she used the last of it on Cho. Harry exchanges a shocked look with Ron and Hermione that reeks of My God, What Have I Done?. Making it appear that the other DA members did not in fact know that Cho was forced to betray them. In addition, Cho appears as part of Neville's rebellion at Hogwarts in Deathly Hallows, even sharing a smile with Harry after the battle is over. So it can be assumed that she was forgiven by everyone. But then again, this brings up another DMOS. Why in God's name didn't Cho just tell Harry that she was forced to confess with the truth potion? Not only would this have potentially saved her relationship with Harry, but it would have saved her a good deal of scorn for the rest of the year. If everyone was willing to forgive her in time, then she could have easily told them sooner and gotten any ill feelings out of the way. It makes very little sense, and serves just to create unnecessary drama.
- Hyrin: Speaking of that, for me it was the scene when Fred and George did fuck with Umbridge. So nice of them to bust in and disrupt the OWL tests that determine your upper-level schooling and therefore your career choices, right? In the books, they specifically wait for the tests to finish, so as not to screw over their fellow students, so there's no excuse for this in the film.
- rjd1922: The movie leaving out Umbridge's explanation that she sent the Dementors to attack Harry in Little Whinging. There are a lot of things the movies, especially 5 and 6, cut out which should have been left in, but leaving a major plot point unresolved when it would only take about 5 seconds of dialog is the worst example.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
- Dr Zulu 2010: The burning of the Burrow was my DMOS for me in the movie franchise. Ignoring that it wasn't in the book, it doesn't make any sense in the whole scheme. Is it ever referenced in later movies? No. Do they explain how it was fixed? Not at all. It's nothing but pointless filler which could be removed for more plot-relevant moments like the whole "I'm the Half Blood Prince" who was given nothing more than a nod.
- Retloclive: The climax for the film adaptation of Half Blood Prince is pretty lackluster, and most of this revolves around the fact that there's no payoff whatsoever to all the build-up throughout the movie of Draco finishing his work on the Vanishing Cabinet to sneak several of Voldemort's Death Eaters into Hogwarts. In the book, Draco finishing the Vanishing Cabinet resulted in what became known as the "Battle of the Astronomy Tower" where several teachers and students of Hogwarts battled it out against the Death Eater invaders that appeared through the Vanishing Cabinet. However, the film's version of this event has the Death Eaters appear through the Vanishing Cabinet, but all they do instead is remain idle on the sideline as the infamous Draco/Snape/Dumbledore scene plays out. Perhaps the battle is being saved afterwards? Nope. Draco, Snape, and the Death Eaters just simply walk out of Hogwarts completely uncontested apart from the brief Harry/Snape confrontation outside Hagrid's home. Word of God tried to explain this that the reason they held off on a Final Battle at Hogwarts until the last movie was so that the climax wouldn't feel repetitive having two final Hogwarts battles in a row against the Death Eaters. However, that still doesn't change the problem for this movie. It's definitely an understandable change, but this ending is such a bad case of Anti-Climax that you're left looking back at all the scenes of Draco working on the Vanishing Cabinet, and remain stuck wondering what the point of bringing in the Death Eaters was if they were just going to sneak into Hogwarts, and leave without actually doing anything. If this was the route the people adapting the content decided to go with, then they were better off just cutting the Vanishing Cabinet plot completely, and have Draco's mission simply be to axe off Dumbledore at some point.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I
- Yahya: The moment in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I, when Grindelwald tells Voldemort where the Elder Wand is. Why?! Just why?! In the books, he didn't tell Voldie where it is because he knew he would loot Dumbledore's tomb, because, even after all these years, even after being defeated by Dumbledore, he still cared about the one who once was his friend. Not to mention that he is the only one in the entire series to laugh at Voldemort before his death. Way to screw up the character, here! I'm not a hardcore Harry Potter fan, and even I had a Flat "What" moment after this.
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part II
- Charleston Man: Between this film and The Half Blood Prince, the treatment of Lavender Brown is appalling. Not only is she misogynistically demeaned for being a typical girly girl teen and compared unfavorably to Hermione, who even calls her a bimbo to her face, but she is murdered by Fenrir Greyback by having her throat torn out, only for Hermione to kill Greyback in turn. In the book, Lavender Brown was only wounded and not by Greyback, who was merely approaching to kill or violate her and was stopped by both Hermione and Professor Trelawney in an awesome moment. The movie changing this can only be because the filmmakers love Hermione and hate Lavender for being a romantic rival and an "inferior" girl in general, and this is evidently worthy of Capital Punishment.
- Kitchen90: I was disgusted with the scene in which Voldemort telepathically tells the students to sacrifice Harry in order to stop the war, particularly the part when Pansy is ridiculed by everyone for instigating a Potter kidnap and screaming "What are you waiting for? Somebody grab him!" and everyone else treating it like it's the worst thing to ever come out of her mouth. Pansy is a teenager who wants everyone to live and probably doesn't want a war to happen, and if the war won't start after one person is sacrificed, then I don't blame her for trying. I think this moment was dealt with badly — everyone just crowds around Harry as if saying "If he goes, we'll go too", when they could just simply reason with her with an excuse. (For example, "Voldemort would just kill everyone else", or something.) And to add insult to injury, the entirety of Slytherin are punished for her comment for no reason whatsoever, just adding onto the "Slytherin are evil" ideology.
- Space Hunter Drake Redcrest: I really love the Harry Potter films. They're one of the few film adaptations to be just as good, if not better than the original. However, there's one moment in the films that I really dislike. At the end of Deathly Hallows Part II, Harry has the Elder Wand, the most powerful wand in the world. What does he do with it? He breaks it so that no one can ever use it again. Now, on its own, that's not bad. My problem with it, and why it's a dethroning moment for the series for me, is that in the book, Harry uses the Elder Wand for one purpose: to fix his old wand. It showed that even when Harry had the most powerful wand, he still valued his original wand even more, which is especially heartwarming considering that wands are Empathic Weapons in the Potterverse. I'm not normally one to scream "They Changed It, Now It Sucks!," but changing the ending like that just left a bitter taste in my mouth. Not bitter enough to change my opinion on the franchise or even the movie, but just enough to make me hate that scene.
- Some Call Me Bob: The phrase "raising him like a pig for slaughter", which also was in the book, but at least there was more context in the book, even if this troper still felt it going a bit too far. In the book, after hearing Harry must die and Voldy must do it, Snape questioned the reason for protecting him for Lily's sacrifice. Dumbledore then states they did so to raise him, and teach him, with the idea of Harry dying at the right time making Snape disgusted. The movie removes that context, though they did at least make him disgusted at having Harry die at the right moment the issue. Why not just say that he was a human being who deserved to live and that he had to be told that in order to kill the Big Bad, Harry would have to allow Voldy to kill him in order to defeat him?
Fantasic Beasts and Where to Find Them
- Retloclive: The Reveal that Percival Graves was actually Gellert Grindelwald this entire time is quite anti-climatic. Mainly because the plot-twist doesn't actually add anything to the story. Grindelwald was hardly an established character up to this point. It didn't change how we or the characters view Grindelwald or that it provided us answers to unanswered questions. It was there just to set-up the sequel.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
- The12thDoctor: One of the biggest wasted opportunities for this movie was the title. Seemingly, the subtitle "Crimes of Grindelwald" is enticing: seeing Grindelwald enact his machinations for wizards to reign supreme, seen through the eyes of the protagonists in the first movie, and Dumbledore himself? That would definitely be something that I get behind. Unfortunately, it was a bloody misleading title; though Johnny Depp gives an excellently nuanced performance as Grindelwald, and the third act has glimmers of the promise I was looking for, we barely have any screentime for him, and the protagonists are in a Four Lines, All Waiting situation. With this structure, the pacing is as slow as a snail, enough to convince me that this film only existed to set up future sequels, instead of telling its own story! Here's hoping the third film losing its release date for more pre-production pays off...
