EPTHarry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
pfff
Belgium1352 Posts
| ||
|
Eti307
Canada3442 Posts
Just see it/read it before bashing.. if you didn't you're opinion about it just don't make any sense. And yea Emma Watson will surely be a babe when she will be grown up but now guys she's just a kid... | ||
|
ItchReliever
2489 Posts
"When I rule the world I'm ordering all Harry Potter fans over [12] to march into the sea..." | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
dunno what my point is, but think about it anyway | ||
|
ItchReliever
2489 Posts
you can't really compare the two since one is just so much better than the other. | ||
|
EAGER-beaver
Canada2799 Posts
On June 05 2004 10:24 ItchReliever wrote: In my opinion though, Harry Potter lacks the many components that would qualify it as a good book. Gosh darn, that's a strong opinion, can't argue against that ladies and gentlemen. How many other 700 page novels do you view as kiddy material, and what kind of books do you read? | ||
|
ItchReliever
2489 Posts
i'm currently reading the sea wolf by jack london. | ||
|
pfff
Belgium1352 Posts
cmon, what components of a good book do you think harry potter lacks? and yeah, i enjoyed lotr a lot more then harry potter, but they are completely different kinds of books, altho they both have large fantasy elements in them. im currently reading bonfire of the vanities. | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
| ||
|
pfff
Belgium1352 Posts
but harry potter still owns. | ||
|
ItchReliever
2489 Posts
| ||
|
pfff
Belgium1352 Posts
and if you have read the books, then you will have to admit that that there is a huge difference between the first two books and the rest of the series. | ||
|
Eti307
Canada3442 Posts
On June 05 2004 10:48 ItchReliever wrote: lotr is on an entirely different level in terms of quality. you can't really compare the two since one is just so much better than the other. you forgot to say its not the same world/story/characters... it's a whole different thing you can't compare the 2. Yea LOTR is fuckin great and it seems to be better than HP but I give credits to the two of them. As Nazgul said, LOTR was a kid story at first.. just reat Bilbo the Hobbit and you will understand. | ||
|
ItchReliever
2489 Posts
On June 05 2004 11:28 pfff wrote: i think everyone pretty much knows that kids like harry potter a lot, but why does that make them bad books? I'm going to quote myself. "I thought I answered that by saying that it's nothing more than a kiddies book. The whole book seems to be juvenile." You know, as in lacking sophistication, which is partly why kids like it so much. and if you have read the books, then you will have to admit that that there is a huge difference between the first two books and the rest of the series. I'll acknowledge that there is a difference, and that difference being that the 3rd and the later books are a little more refined than the first two. | ||
|
pfff
Belgium1352 Posts
can you give one concrete exemple? and even if it would lack sophistication, then that still doesnt make it a bad book. i mean, off course if you compare it with the great classics, it will fall short, but if you compare it with an average book, then you will have to admit that harry potter is FAR above average, even if its 'juvenile'. there are so many things that can be interpreted on different levels. when i was like 12 years old, i liked the simpsons and my favorite character was bart. now i still like the simpsons, the only thing that has changed is that homer is my favorite character, just because the bart jokes are meant more for a younger audience, and homer is funnier for an older audience. i mean, should i stop watching the simpsons because they are juvenile and not sophisticated? youre arguments really dont make sense. | ||
|
ItchReliever
2489 Posts
On June 05 2004 11:47 pfff wrote: why does it lack sophistication? can you give one concrete exemple? Omg, you keep making me repeat myself. "there is a stark contrast in the level of sophistication between books like lotr and harry potter (including diction)." "The books are not well written and overall the plot is sub par." and even if it would lack sophistication, then that still doesnt make it a bad book. Then it is, at best, a mediocre book, WHICH I SAID IT WAS. Read: "But they're all still "readable" books." i mean, off course if you compare it with the great classics, it will fall short, but if you compare it with an average book, then you will have to admit that harry potter is FAR above average, even if its 'juvenile'. EAGER-beaver, who I was responding to, said, "They're incredibly entertaining books, and the 4th one ranks high on my best book of all time list... [Harry Potter] ranks among the best in literature." there are so many things that can be interpreted on different levels. when i was like 12 years old, i liked the simpsons and my favorite character was bart. now i still like the simpsons, the only thing that has changed is that homer is my favorite character, just because the bart jokes are meant more for a younger audience, and homer is funnier for an older audience. i mean, should i stop watching the simpsons because they are juvenile and not sophisticated? youre arguments really dont make sense. I like the simpsons too, and the simpsons is a classic. The show is more sophisticated than you think. Simpsons is a satiric comedy, Harry Potter is not. And as for stuff that can be interpreted differently, books like Gulliver's Travels is one of them. Harry Potter, however, is not. Try quoting my posts, maybe that way you wont sound so stupid. | ||
|
pfff
Belgium1352 Posts
and the whole point of the simpsons exemple was that it a lot deeper and sophisticated then youd think at first sight, and that it can be watched on different levels, just like harry potter. i mean, do you think everyone here who says they think harry potter books are great are lying or something? if we read a book and we like it, then it has to be a good book no? | ||
|
ItchReliever
2489 Posts
On June 05 2004 12:13 pfff wrote: im going to keep making you repeat yourself until you give me one concrete argument instead of empty phrases k? How are they empty? I can't quote and analyze the entire fucking book like you seem to be asking me to. and the whole point of the simpsons exemple was that it a lot deeper and sophisticated then youd think at first sight, and that it can be watched on different levels, just like harry potter. There are no "different levels" in Harry Potter. Read my posts again and again until you understand it. i mean, do you think everyone here who says they think harry potter books are great are lying or something? if we read a book and we like it, then it has to be a good book no? I know many people who don't like Harry Potter. I ask you again to quote my posts if you're going to be serious because if you don't you can just ignore the key points, which you just did. t.t | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
ItchReliever
2489 Posts
On June 05 2004 12:20 Servolisk wrote: I read all of the Harry Potter books because people said 'just read it, then you'll understand..." so I did and it only made my opinion worse. They take no time at all to read, even though it was boring, so not too much is lost. Harry Potter fans have said that people read it fast because its interesting, but its because you can go from one point to another without pausing to think because there is no content whatsoever. Agree 100% so far. The bolded part shows how Harry Potter lacks sophistication. All the characters are annoying and dumb and just lame beyond belief. This can be debatable. | ||
| ||
