A Headmaster other than Albus

[oryx_leucoryx]

So here is an idea for an AU scenario. Anyone is free to develop it into a fic, but we can just discuss the what-if:

Sometime between November 2nd 1981 and July 1991 Albus Dumbledore died suddenly. Maybe in some magical mishap, maybe a sudden heart attack, whatever. The important bit is he didn't expect this to happen and had no time to do any ad-hoc cover-ups nor did he have a chance to influence the choice of his replacement or to incorporate his death into some plot. The permanent replacement is chosen by the Board of Governors. If this happens early enough Lucius isn't yet on the board, if later he is on, but probably still trying to earn a reputation as an outstanding member of society who would have never joined forces with Voldemort willingly so I don't think he'd support anyone blatantly against the inclusion of Muggleborns. Anyway, the replacement turns out to be someone not as outwardly impressive as Dumbles - not so showy, with perhaps average or slightly above average magical performance, but a capable administrator with good organizational and interpersonal skills, but most importantly someone who cares about the students' well-being and education. It can be someone from Slughorn's network or even someone who thought well of Albus as long as s/he didn't have a chance to look too closely at how Hogwarts was run, but definitely not an Order member or any other close associate of Dumbles. Maybe an older, more experienced and less idealistic version of Percy.

The members of the Hogwarts staff are as we know them in PS (Care of Magical Creatures is taught by Kettleburn, Hagrid is still a groundskeeper), except for DADA. Depending on timing, Quirrell might be the Muggle Studies teacher. I think the DADA curse should still be active, so the teachers are still being replaced annually (we don't want the new school Head to have it too easy).

So I think this new person shows up and tries to run Hogwarts like a normal school. Some teachers object because that's not the way it was always done, some are relieved to have a professional in charge for a change. The handling of disciplinary matters changes. The inter-House politics change.

And then in the summer of 1991 Quirrell comes back from a sabbatical with a personally transplant. And one Harry Potter oddly doesn't reply to his acceptance letter to Hogwarts. (I doubt the new Head had a reason to look into Harry's situation of hir own initiative earlier, but maybe someone can make a convincing argument for that?) So what now?

Comments

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

So true! A lot of the objectionable and downright offensive aspects of the books were cut out in the movies (for starters, no 'gallant' Crucio, Hermione never enacted a curse that could've disfigured anyone in the DA nor did she attack Ron, Hedwig got to die a noble death protecting Harry instead of being firebombed, the twins' antics were cut down a helluva lot...) and y'know, as much as I despised DH, it amazed me how much I loved the movies. I was trying to work out what they changed and what they kept, but even though a lot of the plot remained, the movie had more heart to it.

Also, it helped when you didn't have to read admissions of how stupid they were being- like when Harry in the book talks about how they spent two weeks planning, but then the moment they get into the Ministry, they're flying by the seat of their pants and have no clue. *headdesk* And then Ron tries to fix the rain in that office, wtf.

Not pushing a ship agenda here, but my god, I wish that epilogue out of existence. The movie had a really good alternate penultimate scene ending with the trio standing together, holding hands and just taking a deep breath once all the fighting was over. As opposed to Harry crawling into bed and wishing Kreacher would bring him a sandwich. *eyeroll*

Btw, if you look at caps of the last two scenes, it's amusing to me that Hermione looks closer to Harry anyway. It's all about body language. ^_~

All that aside, I do think the movie's major misstep was its portrayal of the battle. I disliked how Harry and Voldy went off on their own, with no witnesses. At least in the book it kinda made sense why the opposing army took off- they saw the Dark Lord bite the dust and shrugged and decided to call it a day. But in the movie, there were freaking THOUSANDS of wizards (where the hell did Voldy get them from? It's like, twice the population of the WW!) and none of them saw him die, but they all took off anyway?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

(Running. Out. Of. Hermione. Icons.)

(Must. Collect. More.)

(*gasp*)

Reading your quick reprise of the top 4 movie fix-its all in a row was something of a shock. And, of course, there are many more. From a purely HP scholarship perspective I greatly enjoyed the movies in how they acted as a lens in showing us how 'normal' people - folk not invested in the fandom - saw the books. The number of alterations as the films progressed were a joy to witness. My favourite is the complete rejection of every. Single. Bit. Of Rowling's repulsive sixth year H/G from the movieverse. Yay!

Even in the last movie there were canon corrections. The whole Elder Wand mess was watered down (of course). They made Voldemort aware of the destruction of the horcruxes (which I'm a bit iffy about, but still).

They messed a few things up - like Hermione begging Ron for permission to break the Cup, if I recall correctly. This is the brave girl who led the boys on the escape from Gringotts, jumping on a dragon, FOLLOW ME, ARE YOU COMING?!?. And then, in the Chamber, she's pleading with Ron, oh, do you think I should break the cup, really, oh Ron, you big boy you?

ARGH.

Having Ron mention was he'd overheard Harry's parseltongue for 'open' in his sleep was STUPID. No, Ron, what you just said wasn't "open sesame'. It was "gosh that Ginny Weasly is hawt I could tap me some of that". I mean, what else would you expect a seventeen year old boy to say in his sleep? :-)

I didn't see the second-last movie for quite some time, so I knew all about the furore of THE TENT SCENE well before I saw it myself - I'd witnessed one or two pro-canon H/G disciples have slight nervous breakdowns over it, actually - no, I'm serious - but when I saw it myself I was still amazed. Those movie people ... they spat in Rowling's eye. They went right to the bloody brink of having Harry sweep his leading lady onto his broom and fly with her into the sunset. That tent dance, he was making an offer. And by golly, she almost accepted it.

(Reminding me of a tent short story another fervent H/G fundamentalist of my acquaintance wrote, at my request; I asked her to write H/Hr. She wrote a tent scene pretty much the same - Harry and Hermione in the tent, alone, attracted to each other .... but in the end they back off. (Because she said she just couldn't do it.) But in her story - like the movie - we're left asking WHYYYYYYYYYYYY?? And I bet you neither book nor movie versions of Hermione know the answer. Other than "because Rowling wrote us together in the epilogue".)

But I digress. :-)

I disliked how Harry and Voldy went off on their own ... and none of them saw him die, but they all took off anyway?

Fair enough. But on the other hand, something I think they did right ... I'm fuzzy on the scene now, but when Harry jumps up, he's revealed to be alive? Some of those DEs start backing off, disapparating, they don't want no part of it. That's pretty cool, you can see it from their eyes - MY GOD POTTER REALLY CAN'T BE KILLED OMG!!!!11!!!

Oh, the hugest most colossal canon correction of all - the complete junking of Rowling's whole ridiculous melodramatic showdown between Riddle and Harry. Can you imagine it immortalised in the movie? LIGHTS AND THUNDER AND ACTION AND BLASTS AND DEATH AND DESTRUCTION AND ACTION ACTION ACTION AND ... and ... and then everyone links hands and forms a circle while Harry spouts a five minute monologue. Everyone's almost asleep and then the two exchange just ONE SPELL and Riddle falls dead due to wand lore which no-one understands. ZZZzzzzzzz. Is it over yet?

HA HA HA HA HA!!

I don't think so. It would have failed in the movie just like it failed in the book.

My God, WHAT WAS ROWLING thinking?!? I really don't think she cared a lick for her series there by the end. Such a pity the masses still lauded her as a huge success. No justice in this world, I tell ya.

Anyway, I'll be quiet now, and leave you with my icon of Hermione. While I go off and search for the best fanfic version of the films' novelisation that I can find. :-) Oh, and more icons. :-)

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

They messed a few things up - like Hermione begging Ron for permission to break the Cup, if I recall correctly. This is the brave girl who led the boys on the escape from Gringotts, jumping on a dragon, FOLLOW ME, ARE YOU COMING?!?. And then, in the Chamber, she's pleading with Ron, oh, do you think I should break the cup, really, oh Ron, you big boy you?

ARGH.

I haven't seen the movie, so this may be completely wrong, nor am I a Hermione fan, but there may be a more flattering interpretation to her reluctance to destroy the Horcrux. Remember this is the girl who quotes from Hogwarts: A History, as if it were her Bible. Given her obsession with Hogwarts history, she may have been unwilling to destroy a priceless historical artifact and wanted her less-intellectual boyfriend to talk her into it. I can certainly understand that. I think one of Rowling's biggest failures was destroying those artifacts, too.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting theory.

The scene itself is on youtube here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21l2gaTnj0). No words about destroying 'priceless historical artifacts', no agonising over lost history ... just a simple "I can't" from Hermione and some hesitation. So - while still an about face from the gung-ho ACTION! girl of the Gringotts escape - it's not quite as bad as I painted earlier, with the "no, Ron, you do it, you big man, you" dialogue/sidebars I'd imagined. :-)

Still quite a difference between bank!Hermione and Chamber!Hermione though. And there's no mention anywhere about historical objects. Both of our explanations lack proof, I guess. I do feel that the reversal of Ron's character into someone assertive and in charge - opening the door, grabbing the fang, "you do it" - goes much more hand-in-hand with my scenario though; that Hermione was made coy in the scene to play that up.

[sunnyskywalker]

The best part, for me, was that in the movies he snapped the Elder Wand. Now, I flinch at the destruction of priceless historical artifacts, and would have been wishing there were a way to study the wand instead... but under the circumstances, and given the wand's history, putting it back in Dumbledore's tomb is just stupid. Snapping it was probably the best choice. (Also, Harry didn't use it to get his childhood wand back, meaning he had to face some actual consequences without a handy reset button. And maybe now he can get a wand that's responding to him, not the Voldiebit, which I think would be a nice growing-up present.)

Still, it would have helped if at least a few more people had run up and actually seen the end of the duel and the destruction of the Elder Wand.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

... putting it back in Dumbledore's tomb is just stupid.

It certainly was. As was Harry's blithe assumption that he would die 'undefeated'. The hubris!! The very first duel he loses as a trainee Auror would see the master of the Elder Wand lost to someone else.

I don't recall how much the Elder Wand figured in the movie universe though. Since Harry didn't - the third pile of STUPIDITY regarding the Elder Wand in the book - tell everyone about it in his final melodramatic monologue, how much did people know? I actually don't remember when the Elder Wand was mentioned in the film, other than the ending.