Why is everyone so obsessed over Hermione?


She's not a bad character, it's her fans i'm talking about. They attack JK on twitter and demand her to fulfill their selfish wishes. Who gives a rats ass about her ended up with Ron.... Hermione and Harry would be so boring and cliché either way. And besides it's JK's world so shut the *beep* up! I don't care if she regreted this or that, she only wanted to pander the Hermione fanbase that has been spamming her to death on twitter. Hermione's black... Who gives a *beep*?! Go outside and do something instead of acting like a cave rat.

reply

I like the parings that JKR came up with: Hermione with Ron, & Harry with Ginny.





Who are you? Who? Who? Who? Who?

reply

I'd bang the *beep* out of Hermione. But per your point. Harry should have ended up with her. Ginny was a bitch. I always figured Ron would die in the end too. But even JK acknowledged that their Ron ending up with Hermoine and Harry with Ginny, wasn't right.

i told you not to stop the boat. Now lets go. Apocaylpse Now

reply

Ginny was a bitch.


No she wasn't. Ginny was cool.

I always figured Ron would die in the end too.


That would have been as sad as if Harry or Hermione died in the end. Ron was almost as central to the story as Harry was.

Fred Weasley died in the end, & that was sad enough.


But even JK acknowledged that their Ron ending up with Hermione and Harry with Ginny, wasn't right.


She said that she really should have gotten Harry together with Hermione. If she went that route, it would have been one more story where the heroine ended up with the protagonist.



Who are you? Who? Who? Who? Who?

reply

Ginny was a very independent girl who took nothing from anyone, just like Hermione.

"But even JK acknowledged that their Ron ending up with Hermoine and Harry with Ginny, wasn't right."

She said that it was wish fulfillment to pair Hermione and Ron and that she hadn't actually written in such a way to make them a good match. She just did so because it was how she envisioned it from the beginning.

She never mentioned anything about Harry/Ginny being either right or wrong. Her point was that she wrote Harry as a better match for Hermione than Ron and she realized it in the seventh book when Ron was absent from the story. She never stated that she thought Hermione was better for Harry than Ginny. I think they are perfect for each other.

Bob

reply

She has said several times that Ginny and Harry were soul mates.

I think the real problem is that Ginny never had any screen time, and very little character development in the movies. In the book it's much easier to see why Harry loved her. Plus, in the movies, Harry had excellent chemistry with both Hermione and Luna and not so much with Ginny, so that skews things a bit.

If Ginny had been presented as funny, intelligent and cute as she was in the books, it would have made a huge difference. She was too serious and not fun at all. Which isn't a slight on the actress, but just the way she was presented.

reply

I agree that Ginny in the movies was not treated well by the filmmakers. She was mostly just another character in the third through fifth movies and suddenly, for seemingly no reason, her character suddenly rose to a much bigger role in the sixth movie including the ridiculous shoe-tying scene.

As for on screen chemistry, Dan and Evanna (Luna) were amazing together. Not only that, but their scenes together were very touching. The OoP scene where they are in the forest with the Thestral and the scene where they were talking after the death of Sirius where she was looking for her belongings were amazing. Even the HBP scene of her finding him on the train and then walking to Hogwarts was sweet. They never gave Harry and Ginny any of these kinds of scenes. Not even the rescue of Ginny by Harry was as special.

Bob

reply

Ginny was underdeveloped in both the books and the films, which led to the universal and probably true impression that Harry was more attracted to the idea of marrying into the Weasley family than Ginny herself. It's a misstep, and it comes straight from Rowling herself.

And Harry and Luna never would have worked, they're better as friends. Close friends as adults, I hope, because Luna is a cool kid who will grow up to be a really interesting adult. But she has her own path to walk and her own adventures to enjoy, and if anyone suggested that she give up her life to cater to Harry's need to have a family she would have looked blank and wandered off.

As to the original question: Everyone is "obsessed with Hermione" because everyone wants to BE Hermione! Everyone wants to be the cleverest person, the one who always knows the answer, and is so on top of things they bring survival gear to a wedding just in case it's needed. So, everyone wants better for her future than a husband who's doing to spend the next fifty years saying "Yes, dear" and slipping off to his shed to get away from her.




“Seventy-seven courses and a regicide, never a wedding like it!

reply

very true, the relationships work in the books but like you said the chemistry on screen was excellent with Harry Luna and Hermione, its a shame they didn't take creative liberties and change that for the films

 

reply

JK had the idea at one point, to kill Ron. Personally I think this would make a to big impact of a film ment for children.

reply

Rowling stated that from the very beginning Harry and Ginny were going to end up together, even stating that she wrote Ginny to be Harry's deal girl. I even have a quote from her here: "Harry and Ginny are real soulmates. They’re both very strong and very passionate. That’s their connection, and they’re remarkable together."

As for who Hermione ends up with, she said in an interview, and I quote "I wrote the Hermione/Ron relationship as a form of wish fulfillment. That’s how it was conceived, really. For reasons that have very little to do with literature and far more to do with me clinging to the plot as I first imagined it, Hermione ended up with Ron. I know, I’m sorry. I can hear the rage and fury it might cause some fans, but if I’m absolutely honest, distance has given me perspective on that. It was a choice I made for very personal reasons, not for reasons of credibility. Am I breaking people’s hearts by saying this? I hope not." So the two were always meant to get together. This so-called regret she has (which isn't even that as se never said anything of the sort) of putting them together, is nothing more than her caving in to the pressure of all the Harry/Hermione shippers. Perhaps tose people should read this. http://www.hypable.com/ron-hermione-couple-dueling-column/Rowling

As for Hermione's ethnicity (I can't believe I'm actually doing this), I wouldn't have cared if she was black, but she's not. Her description in the books imply that she's white (and Rowling made it clear for every other character that was black), and she's also white on the book covers and chapter pictures. There's even a line in Prisoner of Azkaban that goes, "Hermione's white face peaked out from behind a tree" and another line in The Half-Blood Prince that states that Hermione looked like a panda bear with two black eyes.

So there you go, she's white. Rowling is only open to her being black because she (admittedly) acknowledges that there aren't many black characters in the books, and so is open to it to appease the African community (which I actually feel is even more racist), but that doesn't change Hermione's ethnicity. She said that she likes the idea of a black Hermione, not that sh IS black. Like the Ron/Hermione thing, it's nothing more than her caving into the demands of the fans against what she actually put in her books. She should actually just come out and say that Hermione is white since this whole debate is actually causing racial diversity as the whites are calling the blacks racist for saying Hermione is black and trying to change her because there aren't enough black people in the books, and the blacks are calling the whites racist for not acknowledging that Hermione could be black and that there aren't that many black people in the books so she should be black. Again, who cares, it's a book, just enjoy it.

There, argument over. Canonly in both the books and movies, she's white. But again, who cares what race she is? Are you really hung up on such a stupid thing? The only problem I have with it is that it's trying to change something in the book simple to appeal to others, which I find annoying (this is a dislike I share with any major unnecessary changes that happen in adaptations), so don't go thinking I'm a racist; I just hate it when people try and change stuff because they like it better that way. Again, don't go thinking I'm racist. I don't care what color Hermione was. If she had been black, then fine, I don't care. My beef is remaining true to the character. There were plenty of black characters in the books that I liked. I loved Angelina, Lee Jordon, and Kingsley. And Dean, well, I didn't really have an pinion on him, but I don't for many characters. When that horrible Last Airbender movie came out, I was upset because they made Katara and Sokka white because that wasn't true of their characters.

So get over it people. Harry ended up with Ginny, and Ron ended up with Hermione who is white (again, is it really that big of a deal?).

reply

I think a character as weak and selfish as Ron (particularly in Goblet and Hallows pt. 1) doesn't remotely deserve someone as incredible as Hermione, who was probably written as the most admirable character in the entire franchise. However, if that's who her character fell for, more power to her, I guess. As much as nerds want to make fanfics and ship and retcon character backgrounds and motivations to their own desires, it's JK's story.

reply

Ron was the only one of the Trio who acted like a Human being and not a perfect hero.

reply

While I don't have book background, I have to disagree from a movie standpoint. I think Harry definitely had a few moments of immaturity and human failings, but was just written to be much more intelligent and brave in most cases. A story of this magical and adventurous scope wouldn't work with an everyman main character.

Hermione did the smart, right and/or caring thing about 90% of the time, so I do agree her character is almost as heroic as you'll find.

The problem with Ron is that he doesn't offer a lot on his own to this series except loyalty, which is a fine role if the character generally stays loyal at the logical times. When we like Ron and when Ron is at his best is when he is a loyal friend and companion. That's why it was obnoxious when they nonsensically made Ron behave as a really bad friend for two significant stretches of film time and then he just decided "oh, I guess I was being too sensitive" and came back to earth a bit later on his own both times. It wouldn't have been the end of the world if this happened once, but after the second time in DH pt1, all I could do was shake my head at the guy. What's the point of a character designed to be a loyal friend, if the reasons that he continually abandons Harry for are completely all in his head?

Agree to disagree if you will... I still love each of these movies, but I think Ron's character development was definitely the weakest link of the story. Ron is already flawed and human enough by simply not being as brave and smart as Harry and Hermione, so they didn't really need to make him randomly insecure to that level for specific portions of the story. He came off as a petulant young 7 or 8 year old child instead of a teenager, at times. Harry and Hermione being so purely heroic and Voldemort being so purely evil also work well in the context of the story since there are so many characters that are very in-between (Snape) and some good characters that were a bit sneaky (Dumbledore, Dobby)

reply

While I don't have book background, I have to disagree from a movie standpoint. I think Harry definitely had a few moments of immaturity and human failings, but was just written to be much more intelligent and brave in most cases. A story of this magical and adventurous scope wouldn't work with an everyman main character.


Harry wasn't even an "Everyman", he was a bare-bones archetype.

The problem with Ron is that he doesn't offer a lot on his own to this series except loyalty, which is a fine role if the character generally stays loyal at the logical times.


Rowling was pretty lazy with all the supporting characters, to be honest.

reply

Hermione could be selfish and had flaws too. She was bossy, a know it all, refused to accept other people's opinions if they disagreed. This is even affected the trio, like when she refuses to believe the Deathly Hallows were real.

And here's an incredibly selfish moment for her. When her cat constantly tried to eat Scabbers. Now as we learn it's actually Wormtail, but before she knew that she didn't even care. The cat tried to attack Scabbers all the time, but no matter how many times Ron asked her to keep an eye on him she wouldn't. She didn't even try to stop him from attacking Scabbers.

Ron isn't weak or selfish. He has bad moments but comes around. The sign of a true friend is someone who admits when they were wrong. He does that in Goblet and Hallows.

reply

Rowling committed a cardinal sin of writing: She wrote only one major female character for most of the series. She waited too long to introduce Luna and start doing anything with Ginny, so for most of the series the readers only had ONE major female to cling to.

This almost always results in a nutty fanbase developing.

It didn't help that from Book Four onwards Rowling made Hermione out to be borderline infallible, which is another cardinal sin.

reply

Rowling made Hermione out to be borderline infallible

I know!

Isn't she so dreamy?

reply

Such a great character... and perfect casting.

reply

Here's an add-on to this series of questions: What exactly happened to Cho/Harry's potential as a relationship? Things momentarily felt apart when Umbrage forced her to rat out Dumbledore's Army, but I would have thought they'd have a chance later. Am I forgetting a part of one of these movies or was this something explained in the books and left out of the movies? Did he simply grow fond of Ginny and tired of Cho around the same time?

reply

What exactly happened to Cho/Harry's potential as a relationship? Things momentarily felt apart when Umbrage forced her to rat out Dumbledore's Army, but I would have thought they'd have a chance later. Am I forgetting a part of one of these movies or was this something explained in the books and left out of the movies?


It was different in the books. In the book OotP, Hermione had charmed the sign up sheet for Dumbledore's Army so that if anyone snitched, they'd have the word 'SNEAK' on their forehead. Cho's friend (forget the name) was the one who voluntarily ratted them out. Cho basically complained about what Hermione did saying it was nasty to charm the parchment like that, and Harry, who was already in a bad mood, basically said it was 'brilliant' what Hermione did.

This was all after a horrible date between them, that was probably one of the most uncomfortable reads in this entire series lol.

reply

Yeah in the books it was Cho's friend that willingly sold them out and Cho defended her, which caused a fight and their breakup. Harry also didn't like how she'd always cry.

In the movie they're all jerks honestly for turning on Cho, because Umbridge reveals she forced Cho to tell using the truth potion.

reply