Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Speaking of which:

Hey now, dems spoilers.....

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.

biccat wrote:

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.

Diagon Alley and the Ministry of Magic.

Here you go:

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Jobs_in_the_wizarding_world

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....

Asherian Command wrote:Not gakfest transformers 3.

Going off topic, but is that soldier dude in Transformers 3 again?

I've heard he is putting alot of money into the flood up here, and if that's true, I'm definately going to Transformers 3.

Slarg232 wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:Not gakfest transformers 3.

Going off topic, but is that soldier dude in Transformers 3 again?

I've heard he is putting alot of money into the flood up here, and if that's true, I'm definately going to Transformers 3.

Yeah he is in it. He's a great guy, According to my brother....
By the who is the director of harry potter?

And also fun fact some of the stunts were done by team tempest and Urban Freeflow.

biccat wrote:

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.

rubiksnoob wrote:

biccat wrote:

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.....

malfred wrote:Here you go:

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Jobs_in_the_wizarding_world

They maintain the white screen of oblivion?

I've always wondered if they taught english/math/science in hogwarts? Was it just never mentioned because it's not magical?

THERE'S MAGIC IN MATHS!

Kilkrazy wrote:THERE'S MAGIC IN MATHS!

You know what was hilarious?

My Highschool math teacher looked exactly like Mario.

Kilkrazy wrote:THERE'S MAGIC IN MATHS!

Yes, dark, dark magic.

Well saw the film, and was epic. I thought that for quite a few parts the film was better than the book. Some great bits of humour as well.

Azza007 wrote:I thought that for quite a few parts the film was better than the book.

Heresy!!

Here are my top 3 moments in reverse order...

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.

I have to say that one of my favourite scenes was the scene where Harry makes his entrance in front of Snape.

"It seems you have a security problem, Professor."

I loved that line.

Nope...

I have one single simple reason for not liking Harry Potter.

Wands.

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.

Yep, this week!

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Slarg232 wrote:


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!