LogFAQs > #979521536

FortuneCookie posted...

I would argue that Harry Potter is more about Hermione Granger. She's the only one who comes from our world, and the only one born to normal parents, whereas the boys are both magic-born kids from a magical alternate universe version of the UK.

Harry is the titular hero, but there's no rule saying you can't have a female relatable/wish fulfillment character as well.

The way her character is written, Hermione's story is a self-insert fantasy about an over-achieving student who grows up to fall in love with the big handsome football hero. She's not meant to be cute. She's played by the girl who grows up to be Emma Watson, but the dialogue still acts as if she's this little scarecrow that the handsome jock hero is embarrassed to admit that he might have feelings for. (It's worth noting that J.K. Rowling went on the record to criticize the actors chosen for being too cute when compared with their novel counterparts.)

Harry is just kind of a plot device. He's a super-innocent, mistreated orphan. One day, he's invited back to the magic world that he was born into. There's a big mystery about where his scar came from and how he survived an attempt on his life when he was an infant. He never really gets a lot of personal character development aside from the mandatory falling out with his best friend or his quest for foster family.

Relatable/wish fulfillment characters don't need to be that complex or well developed.

That's probably why Harry Potter did nothing for Daniel Radcliffe's acting career outside of the series. It's a lot like The Shawshank Redemption and Tim Robbins. Morgan Freeman's Red is the real star of the movie.

I don't get this at all. Radcliffe has had a stellar career post Harry Potter with numerous starring roles. For someone who is not a leading man type, he gets a lot of 'prestige' work. Without Harry Potter, he would not have had any of that. The most you can say is that he picks quirky indie films over blockbusters.