Movie loves to portrays Disarming Spell like Stunning Spell, it's very inconsistent. In the second book, when Snape was dueling Lockhart, the spell did knock back Lockhart like in the movie but that's it. After that, it's just disarming people, no stun, no knock back, nothing. My guess is that they made it like a stunning spell because it looks cool.
Is it inconsistent or just circumstantial? For example, prisoner of azkaban, Lupin uses it lightly on Harry, simply so he would not kill Sirius. Nor was he enraged. A few moments later, a bewildered and angry Harry uses it on Snape but blasts him back. He's angry and wants answers so it's more powerful/ Like in the example I used, Snape wanted to prove a point on Lockhart. A boring ol lil wand disarm wouldn't do that
I know im a year late, but Harry isnt the only one who uses a spell against Snape at that moment, Hermoine and Ron also cast a spell at Snape at the same time, dude literally got hammered by three spells at once. Hermoine even freaks out over having attacked a teacher. Pretty sure this was only a book thing though.
I know right xD Also, I'm not the biggest fan of the sounds the spells make in the game, I wish they were more subtle like in the later movies. The sounds are very much like the first two movies, which is too explosive for my taste. Feels like the character has lot of suppressed anger that is manifesting this way. I also liked the whooo spell sound in Prisoner of Azkaban a lot and I'm surprised I don't see any mods that would make the spells sound like in the movies. And I can't understand how they were able to spent so much time on such minor details and some canon details but they got a few kinda major things wrong like the colours of the spells. To me it just doesn't feel like Expelliarmus at all.
Yeah the spell sounds i 100% agree with you on. They're WAY too crazy. Right now, I'm doing a death eater playthrough, spamming the unforgivables and for some reason, each one wants to bass boost my ears until they bleed internally.
I don't get the "remove knockback" part. The disarming charm can indeed knock people back. Snape sent Lockhart flying into a wall when he cast the disarming charm. Also, in the Prisoner of Azkaban I believe someone was knocked unconscious by the charm so I do believe it can cause damage.
The movie is very inconsistent with the effect of the disarming spell. That someone in Prisoner of Azkaban was Snape. In the movie, he got knock the f**k out by Harry in the Shrieking Shack. When Lupin chase after Harry to the Shrieking Shack, he did disarm Harry, no knock back. When Snape got in, he also did the same, no knock back. And Harry also did disarm Peter outside of the Shrieking Shack, no knock back. Again, the effect of the disarming spell in the movie is very inconsistent and the knock back effect was put in to make it look cool and cinematic, that's it. The only time when the disarming spell did knock back someone was in the second book when Snape was dueling Lockhart in DADA class.
You can search this topic on Reddit if you don't have time to read or listen to audio book. It has a lot of threads talking about it.
We already know from the unforgivable curses (at the very least) the intent of the caster is very important when casting a spell. It's not at all a stretch to believe that the disarming spell could include the ability to incapacitate an enemy when cast more strongly. After all, if you're incapacitated, you're not likely to become armed again.
ChatGTP gave me this when I asked about a knockback effect:
In the Harry Potter books, the Expelliarmus spell is often described as causing the target's wand to fly out of their hand, but it is not always explicitly stated that the spell can also knock back the target. However, there are a few instances where this is implied or mentioned:
In Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, during the duel between Harry and Voldemort, after Harry casts Expelliarmus and Voldemort casts Avada Kedavra, the two spells collide and create an explosion that knocks both Harry and Voldemort off their feet. This suggests that the force of the Expelliarmus spell can have a physical impact on the target, in addition to disarming them.
In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, during Dumbledore and Harry's encounter with the Inferi in the cave, Dumbledore uses a nonverbal Expelliarmus spell to blast the Inferi back and create a path for them to escape. While this may not be a direct example of the spell knocking back a human opponent, it does demonstrate that the spell can be used to create a powerful burst of force.
In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, during the final battle at Hogwarts, when Harry and Ron come across Fenrir Greyback, Harry uses Expelliarmus to knock Greyback back and disarm him. Again, this suggests that the spell can have a physical impact on the target, in addition to disarming them.
However I asked it to only take the books into account as the movies are too inconsistent.
Yeah nah there are many examples in the books of this charm blasting the receiver off their feet, just spend 10 seconds talking to ChatGPT and it will tell you what book and even read out the line to you if you want.
44 comments
Also, I'm not the biggest fan of the sounds the spells make in the game, I wish they were more subtle like in the later movies. The sounds are very much like the first two movies, which is too explosive for my taste. Feels like the character has lot of suppressed anger that is manifesting this way. I also liked the whooo spell sound in Prisoner of Azkaban a lot and I'm surprised I don't see any mods that would make the spells sound like in the movies. And I can't understand how they were able to spent so much time on such minor details and some canon details but they got a few kinda major things wrong like the colours of the spells. To me it just doesn't feel like Expelliarmus at all.
You can search this topic on Reddit if you don't have time to read or listen to audio book. It has a lot of threads talking about it.
However I asked it to only take the books into account as the movies are too inconsistent.