did Grawp really need to be in this?


I've never read the books so maybe his inclusion there makes more sense but for the film itself, why does he have to be here?

He honestly adds nothing to the story, the Centaurs could've easily been re-written to take out Umbridge on their own. His existence neither adds nor changes anything we already know about Hagrid. His only function in the film seems to be "Aw, isn't he so cute?" At risk of sounding like a cold-hearted bastard, I'm gonna say it anyway, I don't find him cute. I also find it weird how Hagrid has never once mentioned him to Harry, Ron, or Hermione before, even when it seemed certain that he was going to be taken to Azkaban in their second year.

Even better, why not have Buckbeak, the Ford Angela, Aragog's spiders or at the very least, make Firenze be the one who takes out Umbridge, why don't you? Hell, if you really want to change things up, you could even just have Harry and Hermione take Dolores out by leading her to the Whomping Willow and not use the Forbidden Forest at all. Maybe that tree happens to be particularly sensitive to Umbridge's brand of perfume or something, I don't know.

Seriously, why the fuck is Grawp in this movie?

reply

I like how you write. Good reading.

reply

I fail to see the point as well. Did the kids find him cute? His cgi was also similar to the troll in the first movie, felt like way uglier than the rest of the things in the movie.

Oh and Hagrid says he gets his own food but he seemed pretty retarded. Even if he was capable somehow, he was tied down, what the hell was he hunting in that rope's length?

And the Centaurs actually made for a lame resolution. The kids spent all this time to learn how to fight and in the end, they did nothing, just walk in the woods and hope for the best instead of fighting with Umbridge. It was the perfect setup, Umbridge prevented them from learning real magic, the kids would defeat her with real magic. But nope, we have some lame centaurs that half ass shoot arrows at her and not much else.

reply