I liked Harry Potter books 1, 3 and 4. 2 was decent, I'm still reading the 5th. So far it's decent, it looks like a lot of space-filler stuff and very scattered elements of the "real" plot. But the best in the books is always the surprise ending anyway.

The movies were OK. Haven't seen the third one yet.

There are a lot of annoying characters in the series, though. I wish Voldemort would just blow Hogwarts and kill half of those kids. He's very persistent after all, much more than Dumblewhore anyway.

I'm not a fan of the series, btw. I just like it, but I don't like the way the plot is going in the 5th book so far. Some things just start to become cliche, with time... -_-

pfff

Belgium1352 Posts

June 05 2004 06:58 GMT

#102

yeah, i noticed only people who LOVE the books like part 5.
people who just 'like' the books find it not so great.

EAGER-beaver

Canada2799 Posts

June 05 2004 13:27 GMT

#103

Lot's of people are partially right when they claim harry potter is kids stuff. 1 &2 is kids stuff, they were boring, kids and magical cars and killer spiders/trees just doesn't pique the interest of older readers.

That's fine, they're kids books. From the 3rd one on they took on a dramatically diferent atmosphere. People die, and these characters get jolted to a harsh reality despite their young age and innocence. The 3rd book gets things rolling with a serial killer on the loose right from the get go and it only gets darker from there on out with ritual human sacrifices and worse. It's no longer about scaring kids with icky monsters; there's a tangible atmosphere of fear and dread that hangs over everyone, and it only builds from there on out with creative suspense driven writing.

Next thing I'd like to clear out of the way is about the vocabulary, or diction, that rowling uses. It is fairly simple, but her writing is silky smooth, it flows from paragraph to paragraph. The way she introduces new elements into the story, scene transitions and descriptions are all done beautifully. You can't knock her writing/prose/style, it's great which is hard to do in such a made up, make believe atmosphere. So many potentially great novels flop, because the author can't create such a well defined/believable world for the characters to play in. Rowling does this effortlessly, you can easily picture harry freakin potters world in your mind without seeing any of the movies.

Rowling is creative, I don't remember stumbling over any cliches that usually leave me gagging. This is especially true when it comes to the relationships that the 3 main characters have with themselves and their love interests. There's no undying true love crap a la lotr movies (anyone remember any romance from the books, besides all the frodo/sam homoerotic shit???), no whacky teenage hijinks, none of that. It's just confused teens trying not to get hurt as they grapple with their emotions.

I actually started reading harry potter with the 3rd book, without the first two shitty movies scarring my mind and forever turning me off from Rowling's world. So please, don't judge harry potter solely on the movies, and before you spout off an opinion, how about actually backing it up (without ruining the plot for people who haven't read the series yet)? I plan on seeing the 3rd one in movies because that's only when the series started to interest me.

btw itchreliever, I love jack london, white fang has to be one of my favorite books that I've read while growing up before the age of 12. I've never seen the movie though, is it any good?

YNi-Soul

Australia323 Posts

June 05 2004 15:11 GMT

#104

Yes, they are children's books, but does that mean that adults can not enjoy them too?

Liquid`Jinro

Sweden33723 Posts

June 05 2004 23:50 GMT

#105

On June 04 2004 21:55 [pG]Liquid`Nazgul wrote:

Show nested quote +

gold

New quote :D

SunShine

Netherlands787 Posts

June 06 2004 00:07 GMT

#106

im to old for this ;(

Vi)Chris

United States700 Posts

June 06 2004 00:55 GMT

#107

I had a hard time not falling asleep. I don't know anything about Potter but this seemed to have no build-up and no plot device that pushed the movie forward.

InSideOut

Canada1035 Posts

June 12 2004 09:04 GMT

#108

the movie didn't do the book justice at all. It was so rushed and too much was missing.. And i totally agree about how book 1 & 2 are children books cause they are and so are and so is the the first two movies. I don't really see people over 16 enjoying the first 2(still good read) but I could see them really enjoying the next 3 as the characters mature so does the book.

But i still don't understand how u guys can be dissing harry potter even though u haven't even read the damn books, dont judge on movies plz

Liquid`RaSZi

Netherlands2766 Posts

June 12 2004 10:10 GMT

#109

I cant stop laughing when i see people in line for harry potter. I'm really sorry.. maybe it's because it hit cinema's when LOTR did hahahaha. I mean.. i just saw lotr.. day after.. guy aksed me.. omg i went to cinema.. so i was.. what did u think of nazguls?

and he said.. nazguls wtf?

but hagrid was funny!

Commander{+}

United States2878 Posts

June 12 2004 10:19 GMT

#110

books 4 and 5 are not even kids books you dumbasses. I wouldn't consider any of them kids books, but if some of them WERE, it'd be books 1-3. Just because they are put in the 'kids' section in Barnes & Noble doesn't make them kids books.

Do you guys think a kid (meaning like 12 or under) could understand the emotion Rowling put in book 5? Or could appreciate the twist in book 4?

And shit guys... you either like them or you don't. Whats the arguement about? They are a very easy and enjoyable read.

P.S. the movies suck nuts =( It was a insult to harry potter to even make them.

Commander{+}

United States2878 Posts

June 12 2004 10:22 GMT

#111

And who says a book needs to be sophisticated to be good? Harry Potter ISN'T very sophisticated for a reason - to appeal to all ages, and obviously it worked, rowling is probably one of the richest authors in the world now.

Commander{+}

United States2878 Posts

June 12 2004 10:34 GMT

#112

and ItchReliever all of your arguements suck, stop embarressing yourself.

ItchReliever

2489 Posts

June 12 2004 10:44 GMT

#113

So I guess Harry Potter is good because you say it is? Stfu, stop beating a dead horse, you ignorant idiot.

exalted

United States3612 Posts

June 12 2004 10:45 GMT

#114

I don't ever think that it is an insult to create movies about books, becuase what happens is people who don't read the books or will never might actually enjoy the movies, and you always get to see how a director invisions things that you create in your mind when you read, it was a while since I saw the 3rd movie and so when I watched it, I watched it for fun, and not to (OMG they didn't mention this and that), and it was enjoyable. Would've been cool if they explained why Lupin knew the map and who was who on the Marauders..

cava

United States1035 Posts

June 12 2004 11:13 GMT

#115

i cant stand reading, but i sure as hell love the harry potter books. there is just something special about them.

Commander{+}

United States2878 Posts

June 12 2004 16:20 GMT

#116

On June 12 2004 19:44 ItchReliever wrote:
So I guess Harry Potter is good because you say it is? Stfu, stop beating a dead horse, you ignorant idiot.

your arguements suck because you say a book needs to be sophisticated to be 'good', you constantly repeate bullshit instead of using facts/evidence and your basically wrong in every fucking thing you've said.

STIMEY d okgm fish

Canada6140 Posts

June 12 2004 16:22 GMT

#117

is harry potter high art or low art?

AnOther

565 Posts

June 12 2004 16:33 GMT

#118

potter sucks =(

Commander{+}

United States2878 Posts

June 12 2004 16:36 GMT

#119

On June 13 2004 01:33 AnOther wrote:
potter sucks =(

baal

10708 Posts

June 12 2004 16:38 GMT

#120

A Best seller is a crappy book, a book that is so simple with no real substance will sell a lot but will suck for any decent smart and educated reader.