I Saw Harry Potter and The Meaningless Name last night

[Garmonbozia]

I can't believe myself. Yes, we have a habit of seeing Every film that comes out but... Harry Potter?


More unbelievable to me is this film and it's plot or lack there of. I felt like I was watching the notes of an incomplete novel huge gaps. Nothing was explained. With an impressive budget of $200,000,000 I've seen made for TV films that were more impressive looking.


J. K. Rowling and I am going to banish her with a mace.

[discojoe]

The movies are rubbish compared to the books.

Turning an 800 page novel into a 150 page script =

[Not A Communist Shill]

They should have had Terry Gilliam, as was originally planned. I was especially disappointed by the Prisoner of Azkaban film.

[Garmonbozia]

I think that all of you should read my boyfriends new YA novel that has magic and the smarts.

[Garmonbozia]

The movies are rubbish compared to the books.

Turning an 800 page novel into a 150 page script =

I've never read the books. But I'm told from a credible source that she can't write. That the books are void of any style and that it looks like something any high-schooler would come up with in creative writing. Given the dialog in the film I must concur.

Seems like an insult to the intelligence of children.

[Creepy-bg]

I gave a girl a Hairy Potter once... she didn't seem to appreciate it

[Not A Communist Shill]

She prolly thought you were a Hairy Pouter.

[Garmonbozia]

Darlings, be in denial no longer.


The books are horrendous too. What JK has is a nice idea. Weeehhhooo, kids go off to boarding school where they learn to do magic without their parents around to tell them what to do. The have wands and friends and owls and stuff.

Yes, nice pretty idea. Bottom line? Lady can't write. I know this now because I picked the firdt one up the other day and read for a few hours. She cannot construct a sentence and her plots are riddled with holes.

I am aware of the need to go where the wave of popular culture takes you but I tell you this to day my amigos we Must break free of this... spell so to speak.

What she should have done is sold her idea to someone that Can write then I have no doubt that the books and films would be just as amusing as al of you Want them to be. But they are not. Read CS Lewis.

[Creepy-bg]

it's a plot line that's been done to death in like a million other fantasy stories... doesn't appeal to me (my mother seemed to like the books though for some reason)

[discojoe]

The movies are rubbish compared to the books.

Turning an 800 page novel into a 150 page script =

I've never read the books. But I'm told from a credible source that she can't write. That the books are void of any style and that it looks like something any high-schooler would come up with in creative writing. Given the dialog in the film I must concur.

Seems like an insult to the intelligence of children.

Um, having read all six books, I must disagree. I am not in any way a Potter fanatic, but you're being too harsh, and I feel the need to defend the books.

The quality of the writing is very high, and you seem to be confusing quality with style. The style of the writing is young adult fiction, and as far as that goes, this is about as high in quality as you can possibly get. The books also have a very fine balance of symbolism and pure character-driven plot. Rowling very skillfully writes arcs-within-arcs-within-arcs that are very complex and certainly don't insult the reader's intelligence. The later books take on a darker tone that is very harsh and unapologetic, while at the same time losing none of the hyper-creative whimsy that makes that books so popular and readable.

Darlings, be in denial no longer.


The books are horrendous too. What JK has is a nice idea. Weeehhhooo, kids go off to boarding school where they learn to do magic without their parents around to tell them what to do. The have wands and friends and owls and stuff.

Yes, nice pretty idea. Bottom line? Lady can't write. I know this now because I picked the firdt one up the other day and read for a few hours. She cannot construct a sentence and her plots are riddled with holes.

I am aware of the need to go where the wave of popular culture takes you but I tell you this to day my amigos we Must break free of this... spell so to speak.

What she should have done is sold her idea to someone that Can write then I have no doubt that the books and films would be just as amusing as al of you Want them to be. But they are not. Read CS Lewis.

I have read every work of fiction by Lewis, and one of the main problems with his stories is that they are almost overburdened with religious subtext, where he frequently, and not-so-subtly tries to squeeze in a religious lesson. His books would be far more entertaining if he kept these elements in the background and focused more on the characters and the plot, which is what Rowling does.

Also, in terms of (fiction) writing ability, I think Rowling possesses more skill that Lewis. I remember multiple occasions in the Narnia books where the narrator would take a "time out" from the story and address the children reading the book in order to explain what was going on to them. A more skilled writer could incorporate these explanations into the dialogue or descriptions. This is also ironic because this clearly insults the reader's intelligence, yet you cite Lewis in favor of Rowling for making this same offense, not to mention that your post is chock of full of pretentious, unattractive idiocy.

[cracka]

I never get to say this about anything since I watch pretty much everything that's popular...lol

I've never seen a Harry Potter movie.

[Creepy-bg]

I wonder what the porn series is called (you know there's gotta be one! )

[Garmonbozia]

eetr

[Khamelion]

The point of the movies is making money, and for the fans to get to see the things they have been visualizing for so long. OF COURSE it isn't going to be like the book, it is impossible unless they made it several hours long.

I havn't seen it yet, but I'm 105% sure I'll enjoy myself.

I've read and listened to all the books at least twice, 3-4 times for others. So the movies are a novelty and a good time. I enjoy seeing who is cast as who, and that sort of thing.

[Garmonbozia]

The point of the movies is making money, and for the fans to get to see the things they have been visualizing for so long. OF COURSE it isn't going to be like the book, it is impossible unless they made it several hours long.

I havn't seen it yet, but I'm 105% sure I'll enjoy myself.

I've read and listened to all the books at least twice, 3-4 times for others. So the movies are a novelty and a good time. I enjoy seeing who is cast as who, and that sort of thing.

It Is several hours long pathetically enough two hours and a half of things going wild mad, unexplained outbursts and no explanations.

[discojoe]

My boyfriend, whos work has been compared to such chido guys a Calvino and Nabokov had your post read to him and he giggled. Hard.

Do you not think that HP is filled religious subtext? They are. Of a new sort, new agey stuff.

While I'm flattered I was able to make your slutty effeminate boyfriend "giggle" as you put it, you need to reread what I wrote before you and you potentially nonexistent boyfriend share a snide moment of ******ry.

I did not say, nor did I imply, that Rowling's books lack subtext. I said that she keeps the characters, dialogue, and plot at the forefront of her stories, with things like religious subtext relegated to a secondary level. This not only makes the books more entertaining, (unless you typically read Calvino or Nabokov, whose works your boyfriend's has been compared to) but also more successful.

Be a doll and tell Mr Giggles I said hi, slut.

[Garmonbozia]

All of this having been said I will admit what I have admitted many times before: I am a snob. I am a sham-less aesthete and so I cannot cannot no matter how hard I try appreciate this sires of books.

[discojoe]

All of this having been said I will admit what I have admitted many times before: I am a snob. I am a sham-less aesthete and so I cannot cannot no matter how hard I try appreciate this sires of books.

Yawn. Shut the fuck up.

[Garmonbozia]

My boyfriend, whos work has been compared to such chido guys a Calvino and Nabokov had your post read to him and he giggled. Hard.

Do you not think that HP is filled religious subtext? They are. Of a new sort, new agey stuff.

While I'm flattered I was able to make your slutty effeminate boyfriend "giggle" as you put it, you need to reread what I wrote before you and you potentially nonexistent boyfriend share a snide moment of ******ry.

I did not say, nor did I imply, that Rowling's books lack subtext. I said that she keeps the characters, dialogue, and plot at the forefront of her stories, with things like religious subtext relegated to a secondary level. This not only makes the books more entertaining, (unless you typically read Calvino or Nabokov, whose works your boyfriend's has been compared to) but also more successful.

Be a doll and tell Mr Giggles I said hi, slut.

Darling, the use of the word faggorty does nothing for you argument.

I my dear sweet boy was merely pointing out that you said nothing of the subtext (that you point out does exist) in the Potter books. You, perhaps should re-read what I said as well for you will notice that I did Not say that new-age subtext is at the forefront of the book. Rowling in fact was inspired by the books of Lewis and thus we have seven books full of magic.

[Garmonbozia]

All of this having been said I will admit what I have admitted many times before: I am a snob. I am a sham-less aesthete and so I cannot cannot no matter how hard I try appreciate this sires of books.

Yawn. Shut the fuck up.

Yawn. Learn how to maturely make an argument.

[discojoe]

Darling, the use of the word faggorty does nothing for you argument.

I my dear sweet boy was merely pointing out that you said nothing of the subtext (that you point out does exist) in the Potter books. You, perhaps should re-read what I said as well for you will notice that I did Not say that new-age subtext is at the forefront of the book.

Um... Lesse....

Darling, the use of the word "you" does nothing for your grammatical coherency.

I my dear sweet self was pointing out that if you possessed the reading comprehension that you claim to you'd have properly interpreted this sentence:

His books would be far more entertaining if he kept these elements in the background and focused more on the characters and the plot, which is what Rowling does.

Pretty clear implication that Rowling does indeed include these things in her books.

Rowling in fact was inspired by the books of Lewis and thus we have seven books full of magic.

I'm sorry, were you trying to make a point with this sentence, or is this more of your habitual logical-fallacies-as-arguments? Rowling having been inspired by Lewis means absolutely nothing. Not sure why your brain gave the greenlight there.

Yawn. Learn how to maturely make an argument.

The very nature of an argument is immature. Learn how to not be an idiot.

[Garmonbozia]

Darling, the use of the word faggorty does nothing for you argument.

I my dear sweet boy was merely pointing out that you said nothing of the subtext (that you point out does exist) in the Potter books. You, perhaps should re-read what I said as well for you will notice that I did Not say that new-age subtext is at the forefront of the book.

Um... Lesse....

Darling, the use of the word "you" does nothing for your grammatical coherency.

I my dear sweet self was pointing out that if you possessed the reading comprehension that you claim to you'd have properly interpreted this sentence:

His books would be far more entertaining if he kept these elements in the background and focused more on the characters and the plot, which is what Rowling does.

Pretty clear implication that Rowling does indeed include these things in her books.

Rowling in fact was inspired by the books of Lewis and thus we have seven books full of magic.

I'm sorry, were you trying to make a point with this sentence, or is this more of your habitual logical-fallacies-as-arguments? Rowling having been inspired by Lewis means absolutely nothing. Not sure why your brain gave the greenlight there.

Yawn. Learn how to maturely make an argument.

The very nature of an argument is immature. Learn how to not be an idiot.

Ouch, guess I didn't hit that R key hard enough. That really shows my incompetence.

But you got me, I did indeed miss that "which is what Rowling does" part of your sentence. I admit that I scan these forums too quickly. Sharp kids the lot of you, I should be on my toes.

I would sincerely like to know what "logical-fallacies-as-arguments" means to you. Logical fallacy implies bad argument so the words "as-arguments" are redundant.


Clearly what I said means that Rowling was inspired to write her books by reading Lewis. Nothing more, aside from the fact that there was a hidden implication that she... failed.

If you believe that the nature of this argument is immature why do you engage in it? When I started this topic I had no intention of argument it was merely a brainless attempt to express my disbelief.

[Khamelion]

I mean't something like 6 hour or more...

I refrained before, but, lets stop whining shall we?

You don't enjoy it, thats cool. The End. I love the story, I think she is a good writer, and I actaully like C.S. Lewis better. *points to what Peter said about the religious over-tones* That doesn't bother me so much, because the way he does it comforts me.

[Garmonbozia]

I mean't something like 6 hour or more...

I refrained before, but, lets stop whining shall we?

You don't enjoy it, thats cool. The End. I love the story, I think she is a good writer, and I actaully like C.S. Lewis better. *points to what Peter said about the religious over-tones* That doesn't bother me so much, because the way he does it comforts me.

Ain't whining babe, I'm jealous. I admit it.

It's just sort of.. beyond my understanding. How this thing blew up. And, yeah I'm sort of pissed off that the only new words kids lear are fake and/or silly wanna be latin.

And...... I like to play argument with Peter. If it were anyone else I most likely would have ignored it.

[discojoe]

I would sincerely like to know what "logical-fallacies-as-arguments" means to you. Logical fallacy implies bad argument so the words "as-arguments" are redundant.

A logical fallacy does not necessarily imply an argument. Whether or not an argument is implied is a matter of context. "Logical-fallacies-as-arguments" is an appropriate term when someone makes a misstep (in your case, that Rowling was inspired by Lewis to such a degree that there was some form of "copying" in regard to the use of religious subtext) and then uses said misstep to justify another misstep (in your case, that any alleged inspirational emulation on Rowling's part means anything at all in the context of the argument).

Clearly what I said means that Rowling was inspired to write her books by reading Lewis. Nothing more, aside from the fact that there was a hidden implication that she... failed.

I think her $1,000,000,000 says otherwise. Sounds pretty much like the exact opposite of what you're saying.

If you believe that the nature of this argument is immature why do you engage in it?

The simple fact that something is immature isn't grounds to avoid it. Immatureness is a pretty broad term. I just think people should be more realistic and not expect a "clean" argument. An argument is a battle, pure and simple, and is about winning. It's not about being polite, civil, or even objective. For that kind of discussion there's the Socratic dialogue which almost never takes place.

[Garmonbozia]

I like you Petter Hotter.

[discojoe]

ROFL

[Elro]

The movies would be so much better with Sidney Poitier.

[Creepy-bg]

I think he's a bit old to be playing Harry Potter

[olduser]

harry potter books are nice. Entertainment is kind of a boring subject to study.

[Garmonbozia]

[KSpin]

Yeah. Call me whatever, but I like the Harry Potter books. Really enjoy reading them, although book 6 seemed a little bit rushed and lacking in content.

[Khamelion]

I mean't something like 6 hour or more...

I refrained before, but, lets stop whining shall we?

You don't enjoy it, thats cool. The End. I love the story, I think she is a good writer, and I actaully like C.S. Lewis better. *points to what Peter said about the religious over-tones* That doesn't bother me so much, because the way he does it comforts me.

Ain't whining babe, I'm jealous. I admit it.

It's just sort of.. beyond my understanding. How this thing blew up. And, yeah I'm sort of pissed off that the only new words kids lear are fake and/or silly wanna be latin.

And...... I like to play argument with Peter. If it were anyone else I most likely would have ignored it.

I can actually understand that bolded bit.

I believe it blew up, because the first book was meant for children around the same age as Harry. So the kids started reading, and then they come out with a movie, and the next book, and the next movie...all the while these kids are getting older and spreading the news. These people are growing up with Harry and have become enthralled with his life, and lives of the other characters and the story keeps getting more and more thick. The character development keeps gettin deeper and deeper, and the characters older and easier to identify with for youngin's AND teenagers, and even those in their 20's due to the romance that is not being incoorperated.

A mixture of good advertising, well formed characters, drama between the characters, unexpected deaths which cause story drama, and one more thanks to the masses of people trying to get in on what others seem to raving about.

I like you Petter Hotter.

[olduser]

I am watching this on the web and after the first half i have to comment:

There are two montages in the first 60 minutes. You might even say three given the nature of the second montage showing new Hogwart's rules and Potter teaching people DADA. Also, there are lots of cuts to Luna Lovegood which is weird because she isn't an important character. I think the girl who plays her is wonderful and will surely grow up to be one of the most fetching pieces of ass with which the world will ever have to reconcile. Good movie though, daniel ratcliffe guy is a gamma NT.

[Ms. Kensington]

i saw this movie too, and thought luna was also cute. Like, almost too stereotypical but not annoying.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Blaze]

saw potter the other night with my kids. i thought is was different than the others, you got more the sense of darkening. but they changed it from the book quite a bit, like Tonks is nothing in the movie. and Luna is a bigger character than she seemed to be in the book.

i love the books read them all out loud to my older daughter. but they lack depth of character, you don't really connect to the characters as people. it's more the story, the action, voldemort and what's going to happen next. guess it's kind of a fictional-mystical epic.

[Khamelion]

luna is supposed to have dark frizzy hair, glasses and be very weird...but the actress is so good that it doesnt matter i guess

she is also supposed to have a thing for ron, not harry


luna=vague, no?

[Khamelion]

i love the books read them all out loud to my older daughter. but they lack depth of character, you don't really connect to the characters as people. .

wtffffffffff how can you say that?!??!

it must be a generation thing....age issue....i think the character development is amazing and i love all of them, and i even love to hate Cho.

[Blaze]

i love the books read them all out loud to my older daughter. but they lack depth of character, you don't really connect to the characters as people. .

wtffffffffff how can you say that?!??!

it must be a generation thing....age issue....i think the character development is amazing and i love all of them, and i even love to hate Cho.

dunno, the characters seem kinda cardboard, that's all.