Random minifig of the day: hp351

@MeisterDad:
I don't remember him having such a thick head of hair, though.

@sir_vasco said:
"The best of both rat and man in one gorgeous package."

Don't you mean worst?

Not the brightest minig is he?

Why do minifig eyebrows and hair contradict so much for no explicable reason

What a repulsive design. Successful in reproducing the source material, and so repulsive. Congrats to the designers?

I wonder if the actor Timothy Spall is pleased with this minifigure design?

On behalf of the youth Services we really need to talk about James Potter his choises in life.
- Bullying poor Serverus Snape
- Stealing
- Releasing a werewolf from his safe space/holding cell (Shrieking Shack).
- Wanting to sneak out of his safe house while being on a hit list.
- Not having a wand on standby while being on a hit list.
- Relying for his safety on THIS minifig, one whose looks scream untrustworthy.

Conclusion unfit for parenting, time te get Harry Potter a foster home

Hair piece 24072 works much better for him.

@huwbot @huw, is it just my phone that doesn't expand the image when I press it? Or is the resolution too low to permit that?

I immediately mistook this for the one in 75965 Rise of Voldemort, then I saw he had two normal hands.

Does anyone else feel like this hair piece rarely fits the figs it's used for?

Run along, Wormtail!

Definitely an improvement over hp048 - Peter Pettigrew. That one looked like a snide French waiter.

I can't say it's not a fact of the source, so I guess it's accurate, but that's one vile-looking minifig.

I note that we've had three licensed characters in a row (TLBM does add an extra remove to the licensing equation--but March Harriet was a flesh-toned minifig). Obviously, there have been MANY flesh-toned figs since 2010, but surely not so many that this doesn't count as Huwbot on a streak.

@icey:
RPotD doesn’t do anything when you click on the image either. To be fair, in most cases, the part isn’t significantly bigger than a minifig, and minifigs are of a size that you can usually just zoom in on the page to get a better view.

@SearchlightRG:
I’ve seen enough Hollywood types comment on the difference between roles that I think it’s safe to say most prefer playing villains. Antiheroes are also a good compromise. If you play a White Hat character, they tend to be two-dimensional, with few options for how to portray them. Villains can be played across a broad spectrum, from totally straight where they really think they’re the hero, to mustache-twirling, scenery-chewing, gleefully Black Hat villains.

It’s more fun to play the villains, but it’s more profitable to play the heroes. Not only do you headline the film, but you’re back for the sequels, and getting more screen time means you become a more bankable name. This leads productions to seek you out, and allows you to command a high fee. It’s rare that you can pull this off playing villains, outside of horror films.

@Ridgeheart:
I have five original Catwoman heads that were printed on yellow.

@SearchlightRG said:
" @cflyg said:
"I wonder if the actor Timothy Spall is pleased with this minifigure design?"

I honestly wonder what it’s like to be cast in the role of such a dislikable character. Like, how did Richard Griffiths and Fiona Shaw (who played the Dursleys) feel when they were essentially told (congratulations, you’re perfect for the parts of the abusive uncle and aunt.”"
I met Michael Sheard who played Admiral Ozzel in ‘The Empire Strikes Back’ a couple of times. A more charming person, you could not imagine. I think that actors are flattered to be cast as characters that are nothing like themselves. It shows that the directors have faith in them as performers.

Hmmm...while 'HP' isn't 'my thing' (neither sauce, nor character); that head/face would be good for a Jarvis Tetch 'Mad Hatter', at least the version from BTAS...no?:)