So is anyone going to see the latest film? My flatmates gf is taking me for my b'day as we want to have seen each film and compare to the books. As this is the last of the series got to go see it. So who else, and if you are going is it for yourself or with someone else?
I got utterly bored by the entire concept after the 4th film. I loved the books (pretty much grew up with them ), but the films dont do them justice IMO so i simply stopped watching them.
Revenent Reiko wrote:I got utterly bored by the entire concept after the 4th film. I loved the books (pretty much grew up with them ), but the films dont do them justice IMO so i simply stopped watching them.
Apologies for a negative post.
^This.
Also, the films seem to target an older audience. They are very dark and not suitable for children.
I prefer the books, but only up until and including the Order of the Phoenix; after that, the plotline started to feel very forced and contrived, as well as wholly unbelievable at some points.
Avatar 720 wrote:I prefer the books, but only up until and including the Order of the Phoenix; after that, the plotline started to feel very forced and contrived, as well as wholly unbelievable at some points.
I agree.
After Order of the Phoenix, it seemed like JK Rowling was being forced to churn them out at pace by her editor. In fact, the last book seemed rushed in its entirety.
Me too, theres an element of 'other people put in crazy plot twists so now i have to' as well in the latter books (and the films tend to emphasise those and take out the good bits of the plot).
Avatar 720 wrote:I prefer the books, but only up until and including the Order of the Phoenix; after that, the plotline started to feel very forced and contrived, as well as wholly unbelievable at some points.
Wait, before this they weren't forced and contrived?
Harry Potter is a bit of an insufferable ****, but I'm probably going to go see the last movie just because I've seen the rest of them, and it's hard to break a habit.
Same logic applied to seeing all 3 Matrix movies in theater, and will apply to Transformers 3 in a few weeks (assuming it's still playing then).
i'll probably skip it like i have the last movie or two.
i get enough harry potter comments from the kids at work, i don't need any from strangers at a theater
I did enjoy a alt ending a friend of mine wrote where she had the main bad guy killed by a hired sniper......after I asked if guns would work against wizards.......
From the bits I have seen they need Mila Jovovich to liven things up
I still consider the purge of Hogwarts legitimate harry potter fluff.
But yes the battle should be epic. JK. Rowling did a good job but the battle she didn' describe that well.
The last movie should be worth the ticket.
The only thing i regret seeing is the 5th and 6th movie and the end of the 4th. Dear god did the actor who played harry really annoy me when he cried. "Dude are you laughing or are you mad or are you crying?"
Hermoinie's actor i laugh at because just look at the eyebrows just for 10 minutes straight and you will see what i am talking about lol.
Don't get me wrong as a hater, I love harry potter, its the actors that annoy me. (Plus its having a film student as a brother that critiques every movie we watch.)
Meh i still havent decided. I kidna liek the books but I grew to hate harry as a character. The real heroes are hormoine, ron and dumbledore adn a few other. Harry is just a whiny little bitch.
Goin to the midnight show, looking forward to it. Although I think I might need to rewatch the first part beforehand. When I saw it, it was from the front row of an IMAX and I couldn't tell what on earth was going on.
Probably won't go watch it, I got disallusioned with Harry Potter after the 5th book and the less said about that epilogue the better. The films aren't any better, only really 1, 2 and 3 are worth the time spent to watch them
It's a big film series, but over-hyped and has that problem most long series of books or films have, where they get progressively worse
Zefig wrote:Goin to the midnight show, looking forward to it. Although I think I might need to rewatch the first part beforehand. When I saw it, it was from the front row of an IMAX and I couldn't tell what on earth was going on.
lol that happened to me with Thor...in 3d. That was a trip for sure
I'm going on Sunday just to see it through. Have watched them all at the cinema except for HP7 part one, because I refused to sit through a camping trip.
The films have been very well put together since HP3 and are mildly amusing in places. I think I've always got my moneys worth.
EDIT - There is a better adaptation to be made one day. I think it would work better as TV, so some of the backstory could be filled out
Flashman wrote:I'm going on Sunday just to see it through. Have watched them all at the cinema except for HP7 part one, because I refused to sit through a camping trip.
The films have been very well put together since HP3 and are mildly amusing in places. I think I've always got my moneys worth.
EDIT - There is a better adaptation to be made one day. I think it would work better as TV, so some of the backstory could be filled out
IGN did an April fools joks for a series called The Aurors Honestly I think something like this would be really cool. Harry may be a stupid character but its a really rich universe that could have some great stories in it.
Quite a few mixed reviews, I agree the films don't match up to the books on a great level. I do feel the need to see it through to the end, hoping they have the Molly and Bellatrix fight well done.
I probably won't get to see it till it's on DVD or even cable. My GF has all the DVDs and we're planning to do a marathon when she finally gets them all. I haven't even seen the last 2 or 3 movies but I know the whole story thanks to all the nerds at work talking about the books.
Hopefully going to see it on Tuesday, after not making it to see the last two at the cinema.
I like the books, and have in general liked the films, even if I have lamented on more than one occasion how much good stuff has been missing on the big screen.
Some ladies at work went to it last night (Midnight Showing). I'm told they were willing to beat the crap out of any kids who stood in their way, saying "I've been reading these books since before you were born!"
i really wished that i was an inquisitor during that movie, i would have called an exterminatus on everyone in that theater. because everyone else in the theater was always clapping and shouting and making stupid HP comments. I love the books and movies, but people need to be more respectful of others who also purchased tickets.
at the beginning of the movie, two fans dressed as voldemort and harry went to the front of the theater and had a duel...
We had a harry/voldemort duel at ours too..lots of people in costume. I was really pleased though with everyone's in-movie behavior. Most of the midnight showings I've been to have been pretty rowdy, but this one was almost dead silent the entire time, everyone just totally absorbed in the film.
Zefig wrote:We had a harry/voldemort duel at ours too..lots of people in costume. I was really pleased though with everyone's in-movie behavior. Most of the midnight showings I've been to have been pretty rowdy, but this one was almost dead silent the entire time, everyone just totally absorbed in the film.
I quite enjoyed it.
lucky...i wish my theater wasnt full of people who make me and want them to be
was just thinking, in HP, they play wizards chess where the pieces come to life and actually fight and destroy eachother. I wish 40k was like that...that would be SO LEGENDARY!!!
dajobe wrote:was just thinking, in HP, they play wizards chess where the pieces come to life and actually fight and destroy eachother. I wish 40k was like that...that would be SO LEGENDARY!!!
I really wouldn't want a Nurgle/Slaanesh piece coming to life on my table.
Most of the non-teacher cast as insufferable ****, the entire series seems so Mary-Sue hero, like they all win, all the time, and despite not for one moment ever studying, or even turning up for classes, they still pass with flying colours...
With special mention to Hermione and Malfoy, the main characters are all a bunch of snotty brats who irritate me no end.
Am I seriously the only person who does not give a expletive about Harry Potter, books, films, the whole bloated-and-forced-down-our-throats-by-WB-at-every-opportunity-franchise? because right now all my facebook news feed seems to be populated with are harry potter based stati
dajobe wrote:was just thinking, in HP, they play wizards chess where the pieces come to life and actually fight and destroy eachother. I wish 40k was like that...that would be SO LEGENDARY!!!
I really wouldn't want a Nurgle/Slaanesh piece coming to life on my table.
Just saying.
oooh, good point, but i'd trust my soldiers to properly contain any situation, lol. But that would be epic, lascannons shooting stuff and models getting blown apart and running across the table! large blast explosions would look sweet!
dajobe wrote:was just thinking, in HP, they play wizards chess where the pieces come to life and actually fight and destroy eachother. I wish 40k was like that...that would be SO LEGENDARY!!!
I really wouldn't want a Nurgle/Slaanesh piece coming to life on my table.
Just saying.
You know, it would be totally awesome to be able to get one of those Military 3D Map Boards that you can program stuff into to have it actually move about.
Leigen_Zero wrote:Most of the non-teacher cast as insufferable ****, the entire series seems so Mary-Sue hero, like they all win, all the time, and despite not for one moment ever studying, or even turning up for classes, they still pass with flying colours...
Tell me, did you read the books or watch the movies?
With special mention to Hermione and Malfoy, the main characters are all a bunch of snotty brats who irritate me no end.
Ummm.... Malfoy is kind of supposed to be that way, and Hermione is also supposed to be a know-it-all....
Am I seriously the only person who does not give a expletive about Harry Potter, books, films, the whole bloated-and-forced-down-our-throats-by-WB-at-every-opportunity-franchise? because right now all my facebook news feed seems to be populated with are harry potter based stati
Most of the non-teacher cast as insufferable ****, the entire series seems so Mary-Sue hero, like they all win, all the time, and despite not for one moment ever studying, or even turning up for classes, they still pass with flying colours...
My main complaint is that Harry never does anything on his own. "Doop de doop...wandering around. Oh look, the headmaster needs to talk to me. And he gives me a magical amulet. Then he takes me on a magical advantage, and I just sort of stand there, hold the magical amulet, and all the bad stuff goes away."
Then everyone says "YAAY! Harry Potter saved the day!"
Most of the non-teacher cast as insufferable ****, the entire series seems so Mary-Sue hero, like they all win, all the time, and despite not for one moment ever studying, or even turning up for classes, they still pass with flying colours...
My main complaint is that Harry never does anything on his own. "Doop de doop...wandering around. Oh look, the headmaster needs to talk to me. And he gives me a magical amulet. Then he takes me on a magical advantage, and I just sort of stand there, hold the magical amulet, and all the bad stuff goes away."
Then everyone says "YAAY! Harry Potter saved the day!"
Cowgak.
What are you talking about? Seriously, which part of the series is that in?
Automatically Appended Next Post: the basic plot is that Huggy the evil carebear invaded and is trying to use the amulet of rainbows to kill all wizards
dajobe wrote:its harry potter 2.68: the amulet of rainbows
its expected to release in May 2014
Automatically Appended Next Post: the basic plot is that Huggy the evil carebear invaded and is trying to use the amulet of rainbows to kill all wizards
Slarg232 wrote:What are you talking about? Seriously, which part of the series is that in?
Lets see:
Book 1: Harry potter gets taken to wizard shop. Harry gets a super-special broomstick. Harry, thanks to the super-special broomstick, gets on the Quiddich team. Then he catches the seeker, again thanks to his super-special broomstick, and everyone says "YAY HARRY POTTER"
At the end, Harry stumbles into the room with the special magic mirror and is forced to look into the mirror by the villian. The magic stone then drops into his pocket. The villian tries to grab Harry, but gets burned (lolwut?). Harry wakes up in the hospital. Everyone says "YAY HARRY POTTER".
Book 2: Harry enters the Chamber of Secrets (being shown where it was by a ghost). Harry gets separated and encounters Evil Monster #2. Magical phoenix appears and gives Harry a sword and he kills the beast, getting bitten in the process. But don't worry, the magical phoenix cures him. Oh, and look, he suddenly has the magical item he needs to destroy the evil book that started all of this. Oh, and as it turns out, he's the only one who could have wielded the sword, 'cause, you know, he's Harry. Everyone cheers for Harry Potter.
..is it really worth going on? Harry doesn't actually do anything in the books. He stumbles into situations and through some heavy-handed deus-ex-machina, everything falls into place and he wins the day.
Most of the non-teacher cast as insufferable ****, the entire series seems so Mary-Sue hero, like they all win, all the time, and despite not for one moment ever studying, or even turning up for classes, they still pass with flying colours...
My main complaint is that Harry never does anything on his own. "Doop de doop...wandering around. Oh look, the headmaster needs to talk to me. And he gives me a magical amulet. Then he takes me on a magical advantage, and I just sort of stand there, hold the magical amulet, and all the bad stuff goes away."
Then everyone says "YAAY! Harry Potter saved the day!"
Cowgak.
Well, given that one some of the themes of the book series are friendship
and cooperation, Harry Potter getting help isn't really such a big deal. He's
born to extraordinary circumstances, but you can attribute anything he's
capable of to someone important in his life.
malfred wrote:Well, given that one some of the themes of the book series are friendship
and cooperation, Harry Potter getting help isn't really such a big deal. He's
born to extraordinary circumstances, but you can attribute anything he's
capable of to someone important in his life.
Which is fine for a childrens book, it teaches the value of friendship and cooperation. And if that's all the series is presented as, then there's no problem.
But it's not realistic, and the hero-worship of Harry Potter is uncalled for. Harry didn't save the day, it was [Dumbledoor/his pet phoenix/Hermoine/Neville/a centaur...].
The Harry Potter series is portrayed by fans as an excellent example of a childrens book that appeals to people of all ages, and that's crap. Redwall is a great fantasy series that spans generations, Goodnight Moon is not.
Slarg232 wrote:Book 1: Harry potter gets taken to wizard shop. Harry gets a super-special broomstick. Harry, thanks to the super-special broomstick, gets on the Quiddich team. Then he catches the seeker, again thanks to his super-special broomstick, and everyone says "YAY HARRY POTTER"
Actually, that's not it at all; harry doesn't get a Broomstick until after the shop, if memory serves me right. He also doesn't get on the Quiddich team due to (not) having said broomstick. He BECOMES the seeker, catches the Snitch ( ), and people cheer him on because he just won a sports game. Find me someone who wins a sports game that DOESN'T get cheered on....
At the end, Harry stumbles into the room with the special magic mirror and is forced to look into the mirror by the villian. The magic stone then drops into his pocket. The villian tries to grab Harry, but gets burned (lolwut?). Harry wakes up in the hospital. Everyone says "YAY HARRY POTTER".
Magic Stone drops into his pocket due to the magics surrounding special magic mirror. The Villain gets burned because magic envoked by Harry's Parents prevents villain inhabiting villains skin from touching harry, therefor burning him.
Book 2: Harry enters the Chamber of Secrets (being shown where it was by a ghost). Harry gets separated and encounters Evil Monster #2. Magical phoenix appears and gives Harry a sword and he kills the beast, getting bitten in the process. But don't worry, the magical phoenix cures him. Oh, and look, he suddenly has the magical item he needs to destroy the evil book that started all of this. Oh, and as it turns out, he's the only one who could have wielded the sword, 'cause, you know, he's Harry. Everyone cheers for Harry Potter.
Ghosts are very common in Hogwarts, they even go to a Deathday party (In the books, you would know if you actually had read them). Also, the Magical Item was a Basilisks Fang, not an actual magic item. Also, Ron wields the same magical sword, because it's not just "Because he's Harry."
..is it really worth going on? Harry doesn't actually do anything in the books. He stumbles into situations and through some heavy-handed deus-ex-machina, everything falls into place and he wins the day.
He does indeed do stuff, which you would know if you had actually read the books.
Not to mention that both examples listed are from when he was very young.
"Why can't the 11 year old fledgling wizard that doesn't know about his powers fight evil all by himself?"
As Malfred said, one of the themes is cooperation and working together, which is one of the strengths of the films.
Never read the books but enjoyed the movies and had an enjoyable time. The audience was good and didn't have any problems with cell phones or people talking throughout. It is interesting to watch the change in tone from the original films as each got progressively darker and more mature.
Harry has help because unlike most main characters he isn't a hero- he is one of the least heroic characters. He has enough of a conscience that he doesn't do what ever is required when he is in danger, he isn't especially good at any thing which could help him win the war. He has to rely on others because he isn't good enough himself. Aside from the events early in his life he is just a normal person.
Ahtman wrote:Not to mention that both examples listed are from when he was very young.
"Why can't the 11 year old fledgling wizard that doesn't know about his powers fight evil all by himself?"
Why is the author putting him in such a situation in the first place? Besides, the future books follow similar "plots."
Slarg232 wrote:Magic Stone drops into his pocket due to the magics surrounding special magic mirror. The Villain gets burned because magic envoked by Harry's Parents prevents villain inhabiting villains skin from touching harry, therefor burning him.
Which is my point. What exactly did Harry do to solve the problems of finding the stone and defeating the villian? Nothing. It just happened. There wasn't any problem solving on his part, no actions he took that advanced the plot besides showing up.
Slarg232 wrote:Ghosts are very common in Hogwarts, they even go to a Deathday party (In the books, you would know if you actually had read them).
Fairly irrelevant. The point is that Harry didn't find the secret entrance by his own actions, someone showed him where to go and what to do. Yes, he took the initiative in putting one foot in front of the other, but that's about it.
Slarg232 wrote:Also, the Magical Item was a Basilisks Fang, not an actual magic item.
Yes, and how did he get the fang? Did he wrest it from the beast's mouth? No, it bit him and came off. But isn't a basilisk's bite poisonous? Don't worry, there's a magical falcon whose tears cure everything. So what did Harry risk or do to get the fang? Again, nothing.
Slarg232 wrote:Also, Ron wields the same magical sword, because it's not just "Because he's Harry."
Again, irrelevant. He didn't do anything to achieve the special power needed to wield the magical sword, he did so because he was a "True son of Griffendor" or something. Did Harry make any decisions to do so? Did he take actions to cement his status as a "true son"? Nope, it's just part of the character.
The fact that we find out Ron has the same trait later doesn't change the fact that Harry is able to wield the sword only because he's special. A bit like the Arthurian legend, only once Arthur got the sword, he proved himself to be a badass.
Maybe the point of being a true son of Gryffindor is that you don't need to do anything special to wield the magical sword except be brave daring and chivalrous, which is why Neville also gets his turn at using the sword.
Slarg232 wrote:Magic Stone drops into his pocket due to the magics surrounding special magic mirror. The Villain gets burned because magic envoked by Harry's Parents prevents villain inhabiting villains skin from touching harry, therefor burning him.
Which is my point. What exactly did Harry do to solve the problems of finding the stone and defeating the villian? Nothing. It just happened. There wasn't any problem solving on his part, no actions he took that advanced the plot besides showing up.
Slarg232 wrote:Ghosts are very common in Hogwarts, they even go to a Deathday party (In the books, you would know if you actually had read them).
Fairly irrelevant. The point is that Harry didn't find the secret entrance by his own actions, someone showed him where to go and what to do. Yes, he took the initiative in putting one foot in front of the other, but that's about it.
Slarg232 wrote:Also, the Magical Item was a Basilisks Fang, not an actual magic item.
Yes, and how did he get the fang? Did he wrest it from the beast's mouth? No, it bit him and came off. But isn't a basilisk's bite poisonous? Don't worry, there's a magical falcon whose tears cure everything. So what did Harry risk or do to get the fang? Again, nothing.
Slarg232 wrote:Also, Ron wields the same magical sword, because it's not just "Because he's Harry."
Again, irrelevant. He didn't do anything to achieve the special power needed to wield the magical sword, he did so because he was a "True son of Griffendor" or something. Did Harry make any decisions to do so? Did he take actions to cement his status as a "true son"? Nope, it's just part of the character.
The fact that we find out Ron has the same trait later doesn't change the fact that Harry is able to wield the sword only because he's special. A bit like the Arthurian legend, only once Arthur got the sword, he proved himself to be a badass.
Getting ready to go to work, sorry about the lack of format:
1) Except he did do it; He was one of the few who could have gotten the stone because he didn't want to use it. Also, I distinctly recall Harry actually getting into a sort of (Admittingly pathetic) Wrestling match with Quirrel after he learned he could burn him. There you go, action because of him.
2) Harry DID figure out where it was; he knew it was in that girls bathroom, but he had no idea where it was; Myrtle just showed him where she thought it was. If Harry hadn't have figured out it was in it, he wouldn't have needed to be shown where it was specifically, now would he have?
3) In most mythologies, Phoenixes (Phoenicies?) have healing powers. Dumbledore sent his to help Harry. How is that so hard? And yes, in the books he cut it out with the sword when it bit him. Mostly due to placement of the blade. Also, he didn't get healed until AFTER the entire fight was over.
4) And no, he was never a "true son of Griffindor"; he had the courage to see something through (A quality Griffindor loved), and so the Sword made itself known to him because of that. Yes, Harry did infact make desicions to be so; remember in the first movie? "Not Slytherin, anywhere but Slytherin". Hell,
Spoiler:
Neville longbottom is able to wield Griffindor's Sword, as well. Yup, Harry is just SO SPECIAL!
Again, read the fricking books before you get into a debate as to what the hell is going on in them.
Ahtman wrote:Not to mention that both examples listed are from when he was very young.
"Why can't the 11 year old fledgling wizard that doesn't know about his powers fight evil all by himself?"
Why is the author putting him in such a situation in the first place? Besides, the future books follow similar "plots."
Why did the author putting a character into some form of adventure? I suppose because having a book of him just doing homework and looking out a window at the countryside would be boring. Strangely, most conflicts on this scale cannot be resolved alone and working together is an important function for multiple reasons.
malfred wrote:Maybe the point of being a true son of Gryffindor is that you
don't need to do anything special to wield the magical sword
except be brave daring and chivalrous, which is why Neville
also gets his turn at using the sword.
Slarg232 wrote:Again, read the fricking books before you get into a debate as to what the hell is going on in them.
Reading the entire series isn't necessary to know that Harry Potter doesn't do much. For most of the series, he could be replaced with an inanimate object and nothing would be taken away from the books.
Also, I did read part of the first book, and had to put it down. I was told that the series got better later, so I read part of that one (book 5 maybe?) and couldn't finish more than a hundred pages or so.
There are a lot of good fantasy series available, read some of them and you'll see how Harry Potter and the X Y doesn't compare.
Ahtman wrote:Why did the author putting a character into some form of adventure? I suppose because having a book of him just doing homework and looking out a window at the countryside would be boring. Strangely, most conflicts on this scale cannot be resolved alone and working together is an important function for multiple reasons.
If your defense to the absurd results is "he was in a dangerous situation," then it's perfectly acceptable to question why he was in that situation in the first place.
The author could have placed him in an age-appropriate situation requiring more than "being Harry Potter" to accomplish the desired ends. But she chose not to.
Slarg232 wrote:Again, read the fricking books before you get into a debate as to what the hell is going on in them.
Reading the entire series isn't necessary to know that Harry Potter doesn't do much. For most of the series, he could be replaced with an inanimate object and nothing would be taken away from the books.
Also, I did read part of the first book, and had to put it down. I was told that the series got better later, so I read part of that one (book 5 maybe?) and couldn't finish more than a hundred pages or so.
There are a lot of good fantasy series available, read some of them and you'll see how Harry Potter and the X Y doesn't compare.
Ahtman wrote:Why did the author putting a character into some form of adventure? I suppose because having a book of him just doing homework and looking out a window at the countryside would be boring. Strangely, most conflicts on this scale cannot be resolved alone and working together is an important function for multiple reasons.
If your defense to the absurd results is "he was in a dangerous situation," then it's perfectly acceptable to question why he was in that situation in the first place.
The author could have placed him in an age-appropriate situation requiring more than "being Harry Potter" to accomplish the desired ends. But she chose not to.
Two House Elves walk into Hogwarts.
I forgot the rest of the joke but your mother was a Horcruxe.
They never answered the one question that has been on my mind ever since the first film. What do all these wizards do once they graduate? Are there really that many magical job openings? Or do they all settle for straight jobs and do magic on the weekends? That still bugs me.
warpcrafter wrote:They never answered the one question that has been on my mind ever since the first film. What do all these wizards do once they graduate? Are there really that many magical job openings? Or do they all settle for straight jobs and do magic on the weekends? That still bugs me.
I think every job has magic in it.
So you have a newspaper. You need to get those moving portraits
in them. You need to do magical research fact checking. Etc.
warpcrafter wrote:They never answered the one question that has been on my mind ever since the first film. What do all these wizards do once they graduate? Are there really that many magical job openings? Or do they all settle for straight jobs and do magic on the weekends? That still bugs me.
Why do i feel like posting the purging of Hogwarts now?
Oh wait i know. I hate harry potter. But the last film I WILL watch, just because i want to see the battle thats about it.
Not gakfest transformers 3. (No offense but I hate michael bay he quite literally throws money at problems) but other than that not much to hate. Anyway.....
I like harry potter in the books, movies really don't give it's full justice except the last movie is basically what it should be like because JK. Rowling really can't write about battles that well, as she has never been in a war or fought in any. So to me the big war scene wasn't that big of a deal in the book....
Slarg232 wrote:What are you talking about? Seriously, which part of the series is that in?
Lets see:
Book 1: Harry potter gets taken to wizard shop. Harry gets a super-special broomstick. Harry, thanks to the super-special broomstick, gets on the Quiddich team. Then he catches the seeker, again thanks to his super-special broomstick, and everyone says "YAY HARRY POTTER"
Dude, he gets on the quidditch team BEFORE he gets the broomstick. Jeez, everyone knows that.
Slarg232 wrote:What are you talking about? Seriously, which part of the series is that in?
Lets see:
Book 1: Harry potter gets taken to wizard shop. Harry gets a super-special broomstick. Harry, thanks to the super-special broomstick, gets on the Quiddich team. Then he catches the seeker, again thanks to his super-special broomstick, and everyone says "YAY HARRY POTTER"
Dude, he gets on the quidditch team BEFORE he gets the broomstick. Jeez, everyone knows that.
Also note that he catches a position on the team.....
3. The Malfoys skulking off before the conclusion of the battle. Helen McCrory (Draco's Mum) did a lot with a very small role IMHO. Plus she is fit (EDIT - Just found out she played Cherie Blair twice. Now I feel dirty).
2. Voldemort's put down of Neville. "I was expecting something better, but I think we can find a place for you somewhere... condescending evil laugh..." Genius and to my recollection, not in the book.
1. The trailer forThe Dark Knight Rises. Showed very little, but still awesome
Overall, like all the Potter films, there is the odd moment where I think they fluffed it, but it was very well put together and I enjoyed watching it.
Bit that they did better than I expected: "Not my daughter you b***h!" and ensuing duel.
Bit that they got wrong/didn't do: The final scene where harry returns to Dumbledore's office, and with the portraits clapping, fixes his original wand. (I would have much prefered this to the "No-one will be able to find this if I break it in two and throw both bits in the same direction!" final scene.)
I loved the bit with Neville holding the bridge and being cocky, then after the shield fails regretting it big time. The fight scene in the film was so much better than the book I thought, just seemed more action packed as a fight to the death should be.
Flashman wrote:
2. Voldemort's put down of Neville. "I was expecting something better, but I think we can find a place for you somewhere... condescending evil laugh..." Genius and to my recollection, not in the book.
I think this was meant to replace several scenes:
1. Voldemort torturing Potter's body.
2. Voldemort using the Sorting Hat to torture Neville.
biccat wrote:
The author could have placed him in an age-appropriate situation requiring more than "being Harry Potter" to accomplish the desired ends. But she chose not to.
That doesn't make sense. All characters accomplish what they accomplish by being themselves.
For example, Hermione Granger solves intellectual puzzles because she is Hermione Granger and Hermione Granger is good at solving intellectual puzzles.
Also, let's not forget that while the protagonist is important to novels, he isn't always the driving force of events in reality. In that regard Harry is a fairly interesting character.
biccat wrote:
The author could have placed him in an age-appropriate situation requiring more than "being Harry Potter" to accomplish the desired ends. But she chose not to.
That doesn't make sense. All characters accomplish what they accomplish by being themselves.
For example, Hermione Granger solves intellectual puzzles because she is Hermione Granger and Hermione Granger is good at solving intellectual puzzles.
Also, let's not forget that while the protagonist is important to novels, he isn't always the driving force of events in reality. In that regard Harry is a fairly interesting character.
Right. Reading On the Road sometimes I'm struck by how much of the
energy of the book comes from the fact that the narrator isn't really the
charismatic part of the narrative. It's Dean Moriarity/Neal Cassady.
malfred wrote:
Right. Reading On the Road sometimes I'm struck by how much of the
energy of the book comes from the fact that the narrator isn't really the
charismatic part of the narrative. It's Dean Moriarity/Neal Cassady.
Yep.
Harry is there because he is "the boy that lived" not because he's particularly charismatic or skilled. He ends up being both because of his relationships with exceptional people that are driven by his unique status.
Tell me, did you read the books or watch the movies?
Ummm.... Malfoy is kind of supposed to be that way, and Hermione is also supposed to be a know-it-all....
Would you rather it was Twilight?
1) The movies, but then long before the movies came out I never really had any interest in the series, the concept just seems rather pants to me
2) So the fact that the characters I have mentioned having personality traits which infuriate me is supposed to make me adore them because that's the way the author intended them to be? Whether or not they are supposed to be insufferable brats as per the text does not stop me from hating them because they are insufferable brats...
3) No I would not rather it was twilight, that's a whole different rant on the current state of fantasy genre novels that are being churned out to appeal to 12-13 teenagers (who you can't even call emos anymore, because however crap the emo fad was, at least it was slightly original compared to the hordes of beiber-clones and 'I'm trying to be angsty so I wear bright pink jewellery and fishnet gloves but I still have a sensible haircut cos mom won't let me get a [insert generic non-talented-popstar-celebrity here] do' that that generation has become) so they can get all cow-eyed over some mary-sue schoolboy and a sparkly vampire.
J K Rowling may indeed be a talented author, but it's WB who have done the damage for me, the fact of the matter is that I can't even take a piss without having to hear/see/be infomed of Harry Potter and his wonderful crew of irritating compadres, if it wasn't forced down my throat every hour of the day then I probably wouldn't be so full of nerdrage...
In retrospect of that post, my sprue-cutters I am bitter for a 23 year old!
Leigen_Zero wrote:Whether or not they are supposed to be insufferable brats as per the text does not stop me from hating them because they are insufferable brats...
You don't have to adore them but you could at least realize they achieved their goal. If you aren't supposed to like them and you actually end up not liking them then the actor and screenwriter deserve a bit of recognition. Creating a genuinely unlikable character is not as easy to do as it would seem, without doing something completely ott, like having Malfoy shot a kitten on screen.
Leigen_Zero wrote:
1) The movies, but then long before the movies came out I never really had any interest in the series, the concept just seems rather pants to me
2) So the fact that the characters I have mentioned having personality traits which infuriate me is supposed to make me adore them because that's the way the author intended them to be? Whether or not they are supposed to be insufferable brats as per the text does not stop me from hating them because they are insufferable brats...
3) No I would not rather it was twilight, that's a whole different rant on the current state of fantasy genre novels that are being churned out to appeal to 12-13 teenagers (who you can't even call emos anymore, because however crap the emo fad was, at least it was slightly original compared to the hordes of beiber-clones and 'I'm trying to be angsty so I wear bright pink jewellery and fishnet gloves but I still have a sensible haircut cos mom won't let me get a [insert generic non-talented-popstar-celebrity here] do' that that generation has become) so they can get all cow-eyed over some mary-sue schoolboy and a sparkly vampire.
J K Rowling may indeed be a talented author, but it's WB who have done the damage for me, the fact of the matter is that I can't even take a piss without having to hear/see/be infomed of Harry Potter and his wonderful crew of irritating compadres, if it wasn't forced down my throat every hour of the day then I probably wouldn't be so full of nerdrage...
In retrospect of that post, my sprue-cutters I am bitter for a 23 year old!
Wow, JK that is a fantastic "angsty teen", award worthy!
Saw the movie yesterday. Pretty good in my opinion, better than I thought. A bit slow and corny in places, but very cool in others. The Knights being reanimated has got to be one of my favorite scenes in films in general now.
), but the films dont do them justice 
people who make me 
and want them to be 
