Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 23:34:29 GMT
And having not seen the movies, I'm not up on which character is which, despite the franchise having soaked itself pretty deeply into modern society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jul 22, 2018 23:44:08 GMT
@nxnwrocks
Why should that be “bad”?
I read most of the books, but they get longer and duller as they go on. As I know you like mysteries, though, you may like Goblet of Fire—it’s one of the cleverest post-Golden Age detective stories I’ve read (albeit, of course, in a fantasy setting). And the movies are mixed-quality: the first three are really great, but the rest aren’t as good.
There’s a very funny YouTube video in which people who have never read or seen Harry Potter describe what they think the story is; before I link to it, may I ask what you think it is?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2018 0:46:26 GMT
An allegory of Christ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jul 23, 2018 0:48:35 GMT
Heh, OK.  Rowling doesn’t really go at all into that until the last book (so I’m guessing… That’s the one I haven’t read. But the Christ allegory stuff—in a really vague, general way—was in the movie). I mean the plot line more than anything. But here’s the video. I thought it was a hoot: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2018 1:17:00 GMT
I tried reading the first one a few times and couldn't get past page 50. Just not for me.
And I did watch the first film. It was ok but I have no interest in seeing any more.
I do like fantasy but this kind of fantasy doesn't appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jul 23, 2018 1:43:17 GMT
yep you are horrible go away now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2018 7:11:38 GMT
Sure why not
I have also never read them. I have seen the movies
|
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Jul 23, 2018 13:43:47 GMT
I haven't read them and I have no interest or intention of reading them.
I have seen the film series, but I can't say I'm a huge fan of it. For me, they're rather like the film series of THE LORD OF THE RINGS. I want to like them, I feel I should like them, but I just can't quite manage it. They're very well-made films, but they leave very little of an impression on me.
I simply can't get into films involving magic or fantasy of that sort. Meanwhile, I could watch the likes of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or BLADE RUNNER all day long. And enjoy the books of those films as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Jul 23, 2018 15:08:41 GMT
No. I think the books are generally good, but it's pretty much up to personal preferences.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooly44 on Jul 23, 2018 16:27:30 GMT
I read the series because they started out as bedtime reading for my little girl. (Her choice; I wanted Anne of Green Gables.) I think I only had to do the first two or three then she read the rest on her own. I wasn't terribly impressed. The movies were much better.
|
|
mrdanwest
Sophomore
@mrdanwest
Posts: 127
Likes: 76
 
|
Post by mrdanwest on Jul 24, 2018 0:33:14 GMT
Here are some true facts for your consideration: Hitler never read the Harry Potter series. Nor did Stalin. Nor did Mao, nor Idi Amin, nor Pol Pot (as far as I know).
Now, you can decide whether you are bad or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 0:35:27 GMT
Here are some true facts for your consideration: Hitler never read the Harry Potter series. Nor did Stalin. Nor did Mao, nor Idi Amin, nor Pol Pot (as far as I know). Now, you can decide whether you are bad or not. Not sure you can say this of Hitler. Nazis were experimenting with time travel - saw it in a movie once. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 25, 2018 21:22:23 GMT
Skimmed through a couple. Wasn't motivated by what I read to do more than that. And I'm not interested in the films, any more than I was in the LOTR/Hobbit ones. Though the difference was that in the case of LOTR, the books made such an indelible image on my imagination I didn't want those pictures supplanted by Hollywood bombast, while in the case of Harry Potter, I just felt no interest, despite the fact that the films included some actors (such as Alan Rickman), whom I really like and will generally go to see anything in which they appear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jul 25, 2018 21:37:40 GMT
Skimmed through a couple. Wasn't motivated by what I read to do more than that. And I'm not interested in the films, any more than I was in the LOTR/Hobbit ones. Though the difference was that in the case of LOTR, the books made such an indelible image on my imagination I didn't want those pictures supplanted by Hollywood bombast, while in the case of Harry Potter, I just felt no interest, despite the fact that the films included some actors (such as Alan Rickman), whom I really like and will generally go to see anything in which they appear. You may want to take a look at the movies even if only for Rickman—he gave a grand performance. I thought the adult actors were by far better than the kids in Harry Potter. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 25, 2018 21:54:17 GMT
Skimmed through a couple. Wasn't motivated by what I read to do more than that. And I'm not interested in the films, any more than I was in the LOTR/Hobbit ones. Though the difference was that in the case of LOTR, the books made such an indelible image on my imagination I didn't want those pictures supplanted by Hollywood bombast, while in the case of Harry Potter, I just felt no interest, despite the fact that the films included some actors (such as Alan Rickman), whom I really like and will generally go to see anything in which they appear. You may want to take a look at the movies even if only for Rickman—he gave a grand performance. I thought the adult actors were by far better than the kids in Harry Potter. I have dialed up a few clips on youtube of Rickman's scenes, I admit. He's great--but I still can't bring myself to sit through any of the films in their entirety. |
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 25, 2018 21:56:31 GMT
I've never read the books but I very rarely read fiction anyway. When I do read fiction it's only after I've seen the movie (much more enjoyable that way).
I saw the first movie but none of the others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jul 25, 2018 22:01:08 GMT
You may want to take a look at the movies even if only for Rickman—he gave a grand performance. I thought the adult actors were by far better than the kids in Harry Potter. I have dialed up a few clips on youtube of Rickman's scenes, I admit. He's great--but I still can't bring myself to sit through any of the films in their entirety. May I ask why not? I’m not a big Harry Potter fan at all, but I’d also never try actively to avoid them. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 25, 2018 22:05:58 GMT
I have dialed up a few clips on youtube of Rickman's scenes, I admit. He's great--but I still can't bring myself to sit through any of the films in their entirety. May I ask why not? I’m not a big Harry Potter fan at all, but I’d also never try actively to avoid them. Hard to say exactly. Maybe just the reek of high-dollar merchandising that comes off of them (I know, I know; that sounds hopelessly snotty and elitist, lol); maybe just the fact that I found the source material so uninvolving. They just seem to have a quality of 'Hollywood specious fantasy' about them that I just can't get myself to penetrate--but I'll also admit that that's a bit of an unfair evaluation, as I haven't actually seen any of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jul 25, 2018 22:20:23 GMT
May I ask why not? I’m not a big Harry Potter fan at all, but I’d also never try actively to avoid them. Hard to say exactly. Maybe just the reek of high-dollar merchandising that comes off of them (I know, I know; that sounds hopelessly snotty and elitist, lol); maybe just the fact that I found the source material so uninvolving. They just seem to have a quality of 'Hollywood specious fantasy' about them that I just can't get myself to penetrate--but I'll also admit that that's a bit of an unfair evaluation, as I haven't actually seen any of them. If you do ever try one, try Prisoner of Azkaban (third movie). Best-acted, most inventive, best-directed of the lot, in many viewers’ opinion (myself included). If you don’t like it, that’s fine, but I think that’s a good basis on which to gauge why or why not you dislike it. What does annoy me about Potter is the oft-rabid fan base (and, yes, I’m over generalizing). But then all obsessive fan bases really bother me, even those of properties I really like. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 25, 2018 22:41:58 GMT
Hard to say exactly. Maybe just the reek of high-dollar merchandising that comes off of them (I know, I know; that sounds hopelessly snotty and elitist, lol); maybe just the fact that I found the source material so uninvolving. They just seem to have a quality of 'Hollywood specious fantasy' about them that I just can't get myself to penetrate--but I'll also admit that that's a bit of an unfair evaluation, as I haven't actually seen any of them. If you do ever try one, try Prisoner of Azkaban (third movie). Best-acted, most inventive, best-directed of the lot, in many viewers’ opinion (myself included). If you don’t like it, that’s fine, but I think that’s a good basis on which to gauge why or why not you dislike it. What does annoy me about Potter is the oft-rabid fan base (and, yes, I’m over generalizing). But then all obsessive fan bases really bother me, even those of properties I really like. Of the people I know who have seen the films, Azkaban generally seemed to get the most favorable comment. I probably would be the most diposed to watch this one out of the lot, and may give it a try at some point. I know what you mean about the fans--but for some reason, there are too many productions that generate those sort of followers. I have some shows and films I feel fairly passionate about, but I could never see going the lengths that some of these sorts go to. |
|
Rowling doesn’t really go at all into that until the last book (so I’m guessing… That’s the one I haven’t read. But the Christ allegory stuff—in a really vague, general way—was in the movie). 
