If you actually enjoyed all the movies, I don't see why you can't enjoy the books as well. The books are much better than the related films imo. I've actually read all the books (finished in late highschool) but never seen all the movies (up to the 4th book). Maybe you just miss Emma Watson or something.

RoieTRS

United States2569 Posts

October 25 2010 00:46 GMT

#23

I hate Harry potter.

bellweather

United States404 Posts

October 25 2010 00:55 GMT

#24

Has more to do with writing style than anything else in my opinion. I read all 7 books, and they were definitely more interesting when I was younger. Not trying to exude any sort of personal snobbery, but when you're watching the movies you can be wowed by the visual aspects and not have to deal with the sometimes drawn out, sometimes poorly written dialogue in the books. Either that or you've grown out of the series entirely in which case you probably won't have a good time watching the last 2 movies.

emperorchampion

Canada9496 Posts

October 25 2010 01:00 GMT

#25

On October 25 2010 09:42 Kenpachi wrote:

Show nested quote +

yea it is
nvm its both

Only in the USA I believe, don't really know why...?

Crunchums

United States11143 Posts

October 25 2010 01:04 GMT

#26

There's no such thing as too old for harry potter but you might find the first two books a bit childish. The perspective is intentionally written as initially childish but increasingly adult to match the protagonist's own age. By the 3rd or the 4th your concerns will go away and you'll be glad you read the series.

GGQ

Canada2653 Posts

October 25 2010 01:09 GMT

#27

On October 25 2010 09:38 Tazza wrote:
I think its the sorcerer's stone, isn't it?

It's the Philosopher's Stone. The idea of a substance that could turn lead into gold and give an elixer of immortality was not actually invented by Rowling, it was taken from history. Even Dumbledore's old friend Nicholas Flamel was a historical person. For centuries alchemists like Flamel sought to make a Philosopher's Stone, and while alchemy was considered science at the time, by modern standards it was a lot closer to mysticism. When the book was being published in America, the publishers were afraid (perhaps justifiably) that people wouldn't understand the reference to medieval mystical alchemy, so they changed the name to 'Sorcerer's Stone' to make it more obvious that it was about magic and wizards.

Aylear

Norway3988 Posts

October 25 2010 01:13 GMT

#28

On October 25 2010 09:38 Tazza wrote:
I think its the sorcerer's stone, isn't it?

It's Philosopher's Stone, you Americanized bastards!

To be honest, the first book is very tame and straightforward, and not very compelling to adults. If you're above a certain age you can poke logic holes in everything. I don't think Harry Potter got its reputation as entertainment for kids and adults alike until a couple books in.

I'd recommend skimming the first book pretty quickly if it's so mind-numbingly boring to you. It'll get more interesting later.

Alou

United States3748 Posts

October 25 2010 01:18 GMT

#29

The 4th-7th books are a lot more darker. From then on it gets more serious. The 3rd book is also really entertaining because it's a lot on Harry's parents. The 1st and the 2nd one are definitely more for children. Get through the first 2 and the rest are good

Edit - Philosophers in most part of the world. Sorcerers in America because the publisher knew that philosopher has different connotations in American than in UK.

Crunchums

United States11143 Posts

October 25 2010 01:26 GMT

#30

On October 25 2010 10:00 emperorchampion wrote:

Show nested quote +

Only in the USA I believe, don't really know why...?

It was originally the philosopher's stone but they changed it to the sorcerer's stone in the american version for marketing reasons (americans are too dumb to know about the philosopher's stone >__> )

ToFu.

331 Posts

October 25 2010 01:35 GMT

#31

i didn't start reading HP until the 3rd book had already come out so i read the first 3 books in like 3 days or so? (this was when i was 10 so i had time)

as time went on, i just got tired of the series.. they became longer and more drawn out while you already knew harry will defeat voldemort. i guess i'll be the rebel that says I liked the first book the most.

riptide

5673 Posts

October 25 2010 01:42 GMT

#32

If you're a fan of good writing, you'll like Harry Potter. The first few books may seem a little simple, but starting from the Prisoner of Azkaban it gets a lot better. By the time you get to the Deathly Hallows and look back, the arcs, the little sub-sub plots she ties up and the amazing consistency she maintains across the entire series make it a fantastic experience. One of Rowling's strengths is the strong focus she gives to character development and relationships. In fact, once you peel back the magic and look past the perennial battle between good and evil, it's really just a coming of age story, and that's something many people can relate to.

The target audience is not adults, but I know many adults who enjoy it as well. It's not Tolkien, but it's still one of the best series of our generation, easily.

+ Show Spoiler [Ending] +

Then she'll sissy out and not have Harry kill Voldermot (thx2u wand!) and you'll feel cheated for the rest of your life. Also, Albus Severus? Wut. Sounds like a scientific name for a STD.

Trowabarton756

United States870 Posts

October 25 2010 01:44 GMT

#33

I remember reading the books when they first come out and enjoying first 1-4ish. After that though it got rediculously stupid, like I've already suspended my disbelief and its still really far fetched. And who the hell says the 7th book is the best? They walk around in the fucking woods for 3/4th it. Then all because of some stupid shit where "just cause I picked this up its not mine" crap happened harry wins. "magical"

dudeman001

United States2412 Posts

October 25 2010 01:48 GMT

#34

Nobody's too old for Harry Potter :D! The first books are definitely a little more on the childish side but it's only expected, they're about kids 11-13 learning magic. Read them for the creativity and maybe they'll start growing on you.

Raeleigh

Canada902 Posts

October 25 2010 01:48 GMT

#35

I'm 20 now, and I've loved the books&movies since they first came out.
And I *still* love them. I'll admit, i'm a giant Harry Potter nerd. I don't see anything wrong with it, either.

My mother is turning 40 and she still loves the books and movies as well.
My dad hasn't read the books(yet)(he's somewhere around 50 idk) but he loves the movies.

Never too old! The first book is incredibly boring, but once you get past it, you get drawn in. I promise.
I had problems starting the series because of that reason.

Iranon

United States983 Posts

October 25 2010 01:51 GMT

#36

When the 4th one came out, I caved in and thought "okay, fine, I'll give this a chance." Read 1-4 in two afternoons, thought it was just terrible writing, and as a result have not read 5-7, nor did I ever intend to. Well, maybe not 'bad' writing per se, but I couldn't deal with the third grade reading level and similar predictability. I'm intrigued at the posters saying the last few books get better. I'll might cruise through the series someday after all if it actually stops being "Harry and Friends Have a Great Big Adventure in Wizardland! Hooray!" after a point and becomes an interesting fantasy story.

Versita

Canada1032 Posts

October 25 2010 02:16 GMT

#37

i think you just don't like reading/enjoy good writing. i read then when they first came out, and i've reread a few of the books recently (i'm 18) and my sister(25) also enjoys rereading the books.

Quake48

United States68 Posts

October 25 2010 02:18 GMT

#38

I find the series a little hard to believe. I mean a ginger kid with TWO friends?

Divinek

Canada4045 Posts

October 25 2010 02:38 GMT

#39

On October 25 2010 10:04 Crunchums wrote:
There's no such thing as too old for harry potter but you might find the first two books a bit childish. The perspective is intentionally written as initially childish but increasingly adult to match the protagonist's own age. By the 3rd or the 4th your concerns will go away and you'll be glad you read the series.

fairly accurate imo, really enjoyed the whole series. Even still and im 20

OpticalShot

Canada6330 Posts

October 25 2010 02:40 GMT

#40

I read books 1-4, skimmed through 5, and didn't bother reading 6 and 7. It was probably a combination of me losing interest in reading (altogether) and being tired of the writing style of the author. The movies are ok though - I watched all of them so far, and plan on watching both movies for book 7.