|
warning - this thread might contain spoilers. my post doesn't contain any but other posters' posts might.
i just saw the 10:10 (est) show of harry potter and the prisoner of azkaban
i thought it would be better, although i didnt think it was a bad movie. i didn't feel that there was enough of a "critical point"/"turning point" in the movie. the plot all sort of seemed to keep nearing the climax, without the climax actually occuring.
and then when what i considered to be the climax (the whole little thing when sirius black, harry, lupin, and the mouse/traitor guy meet inside the tree or whatever) seemed so weak 
its sorta like when you build up to something so much and then when it happens its like "eh..."
i didn't read the books (i plan to soon) but i dont know.. i just thought it would be a bit better. i feel it was too built upto that point and then the payoff wasnt that great.
oh well least i got in for free. your guys thoughts?
|
[Insert random Harry Potter Flame here]
[Followed by Mydnyte yawning because he doesn't like Harry Potter]
|
|
|
|
|
rofl see? Everyone calls me Ken. WTF!?
|
On June 04 2004 21:43 Mydnyte wrote: [Insert random Harry Potter Flame here] [Followed by Mydnyte yawning because he doesn't like Harry Potter]
|
When I rule the world I'm ordering all Harry Potter fans over 8 to march into the sea...
|
|
|
On June 04 2004 21:51 Servolisk wrote:
When I rule the world I'm ordering all Harry Potter fans over 8 to march into the sea...
gold
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, I just saw the third movie and for anyone wanting something that maintained some loyalty to the books, I wouldn't see it, in fact avoid it if you have any loyalty to the books. So horribly off from the books. For once I'm disappointed, majorly disappointed. They gutted the book, leaving the characters with no charisma or charm. They made snape look half evil of what he acted like in PoA. Harry was a wimp compared to the stoic attitude he displayed in the book. The hermione/ron thing was just so ARGHH, I'm H/H person, and I remember JK talking about how she had to tell the directors to add or remove parts because of later on. Well hermione and harry never really got their moments, so that means it looks like RON and Hermione are ending up together which just A:LKJFD:SLKFJLKSJF. LUPIN was a joke, he was so scrappy and not anything like I thought he would be. It's really quite a disappointment, and considering that GoF is going to be ONE movie?? Are they insane, it will be like Harry goes to hogwarts and then suddenly appears in Riddles graveyard. I have to express my dissent with one word/sound/whatever "Arghh"
For non HP people, they are trying to put a book that is 800 pages into 1 2 hour movie, gogo WB --;
|
I heard JK Rowling was a billionaire, and Harry Potter replaced lotr as the best selling book of all time
|
I guess I can't look at myself in the mirror then
|
....@gryffindor
I"m [used] to be a pretty big harry potter fan (until I got older becuase the books came out so sluggishly), and the actress (Emma Watson) who players Hermonine is really pretty. Yeah. I'm probably going to ask the weirdo girl i'm interested in to see taht or Chronicles of Riddick.
|
On June 04 2004 21:58 Veg wrote:
im quite certain return of the king made more money than all thirty five harry potter books // movies combined
rar
http://www.boxofficereport.com/atbon/100m.shtml
if rotk is on #6 and harry potter (just the first one) is #13, i dont think thats true :/
|
|
|
Are you kidding me? The books have made more money selling than those movies combined. ( speculation )
|
Hell, I use to be like that. 2 years ago, I called my little brother a faggot for liking the movies. Then I saw one, and I was interested. I read the books and I loved them. IF you read them and then told me they were SHIT, your comments would have more bearing.
|
actually most people i know really think it sucks, but i will ignore that and watch all 3 of the harry potter movies
|
i saw the first and 3rd movies, didnt read the books.
first movie didnt interest me that much.
i liked this one though
|
bigballs this is the 3rd movie -_-;; and veg its the 5th one not the thirty fifth, yes i read the books but yeah i just wait them to come, i hear j.r rowling is richer than the queen, and also the producer of the mover was fired or sth so i wonder how this one will turn out, btw a lot of the scenes are cut out that were in the book, and that dissapoints me, it happened in LOTR too
|
On June 04 2004 22:43 BigBalls wrote:
i saw the first and 3rd movies, didnt read the books.
first movie didnt interest me that much.
i liked this one though
On June 04 2004 22:51 Dave307 wrote:
bigballs this is the 3rd movie -_-;; and veg its the 5th one not
what?
I havent seen it, but i probably will..
the books werent that bad, but i read them a while ago
|
Norway10161 Posts
the 2nd movie sucked, pretty much because the horrible ending and the rendering from the guys behind Simbad.
Don't think I'm gonna see the 3rd. Altho one of my girl friends walked down the red carpet with one of the actors on the london premier.
|
i wonder if i'm the only one here who thinks that the only thing J.K.Rowling is good for is oral sex.... diagonally
|
United States33394 Posts
I saw the pokemon movie :D
|
heard from many the books are pretty good
all I can say is that that second movie was as boring as it gets, never bothered moving my ass for harry after that
|
Austin10831 Posts
This, the third movie, was directed by Alfonso Cuarn, of Y tu mam tambin fame. The first two were done by Chris Columbus, whose notables include Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire and Nine Months. As you can tell, the third has an entirely different feel from the first two.
|
Mrs Doubtfire is a classic
FIGARO FIGARO
|
|
|
|
|
lol, i saw ur post b4 you edited Gryffind  . Dont' do it!!!
anyway, I used to think HP sux and for little kids too before i read them, pretty entertaining books I'd say. The movies are pretty good, I saw them with my sister, but they're not as good as the books.
I'm not a "raging fan" of HP but I do enjoy it. Only retards who hasn't really grown out of puberty would flame others for their preference of books......Unless you're Hitler or some communist bitches...then you're just a retard.
|
On June 04 2004 23:51 [pG]Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Mrs Doubtfire is a classic
FIGARO FIGARO
Oh yes!! FIGAROOOh
|
FuDDx
United States5008 Posts
Indeed i agree with u 100% BerZergKer read the book then u al can talk your OPINOINS of the books/movie
|
On June 05 2004 00:32 BerZergKer wrote: lol, i saw ur post b4 you edited Gryffind . Dont' do it!!! anyway, I used to think HP sux and for little kids too before i read them, pretty entertaining books I'd say. The movies are pretty good, I saw them with my sister, but they're not as good as the books. I'm not a "raging fan" of HP but I do enjoy it. Only retards who hasn't really grown out of puberty would flame others for their preference of books......Unless you're Hitler or some communist bitches...then you're just a retard.
Normally it is retarded to flame others for their preference of books, but Harry Potter is the exception. It was bad enough that enough people liked the teletubby equivalent of books, maybe if you would be secretly ashamed and keep quiet no one would dislike you, but you bring the flames on yourself when you band together with your other deviants and try to shove the gayest thing since the san francisco gay men's choir down our throats.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On June 04 2004 23:25 Waxangel wrote:
I saw the pokemon movie :D
 !!
|
Austin10831 Posts
On June 05 2004 01:24 Servolisk wrote: Show nested quote +On June 05 2004 00:32 BerZergKer wrote: lol, i saw ur post b4 you edited Gryffind . Dont' do it!!! anyway, I used to think HP sux and for little kids too before i read them, pretty entertaining books I'd say. The movies are pretty good, I saw them with my sister, but they're not as good as the books. I'm not a "raging fan" of HP but I do enjoy it. Only retards who hasn't really grown out of puberty would flame others for their preference of books......Unless you're Hitler or some communist bitches...then you're just a retard. Normally it is retarded to flame others for their preference of books, but Harry Potter is the exception. It was bad enough that enough people liked the teletubby equivalent of books, maybe if you would be secretly ashamed and keep quiet no one would dislike you, but you bring the flames on yourself when you band together with your other deviants and try to shove the gayest thing since the san francisco gay men's choir down our throats.
This post is so rife with idiocy it's not even worth it.
|
-__-; kiddy literature for kiddy brains
|
Netherlands1301 Posts
I think the books are okay, especially the third one. After that the serie got a bit boring in my opinion. About the movies.. I think the first one sucked, and I thought the second resembled the book pretty well, I enjoyed it. Nothing impressive though. Don't think I'm going to see the third one in the theatres =P
|
the books ARE good, the first two really are children books (still a good read tho), but later on they really get good, and this is not coming from someone who had never read a book in his life, i read a lot and those were some of the most addicting books ive ever read.
what i do advice, read them in english, the translated versions (especially the dutch one) sucks ass.
the movies arent very good tho, too short, they completely miss what is best about the books (the normal life in the school, the humor), very uncreatively directed (spielberg had applied for the job, but he wanted that haley joel osmont boy as harry potter, and rowling didnt agree, imo they shouldve let tim burton direct them), both movies are just two very thumbed down versions of the main story, while all the side storys are the best thing about the books imo.
i only liked them because i read the books. when i read the books, i really didnt have the idea i was reading a childrens book, but when i saw the movies, i thought i was seeing a childrens movie.
i hope they dont screw this movie up like they did with the others, its only 1 and a half hour long, so i dont expect much, ill probably see it when it comes out on dvd or something.
btw, i was very very sceptic about the books, and i was laughing with them in the same way a lot of you guys are doing, but my father bought the first 2 for an easy read in the airplane when he came back from some congress, and he said they were very very good, so after my sister and brother had read them too, and said they were very very good too, i read them too, still thinking they were going to suck, but they OWNED so much, after i finished the first two, i immediately went to buy the 3rd and the fourth, and when the fifth came out, i bought it on the first day, and finished reading it on that same day.
really, if you havent read them, you shouldnt judge
|
Yep I shouldnt judge grown ups that like small kids running around playing with magic... but I still do.
|
I saw the movie at midnight, with a bunch of friends. I enjoyed myself, I don't go see these movies for great acting or an awesome story I see them for eye candy. The special effects are good and make the movie interesting. I must say I live right next to OSU, and our biggest theatre which is 24 screens sold out 20 of them for the midnight showing, and it was mostly college students my age. I go see movies for entertainment not based on whether I am gonna be "cool" or not if I see them. Anyone who says you are not "cool" for seeing a movie should set themselves on fire and die.
On a sidenote you could definetly tell a difference from this movie as apposed to the others due to the new director. This movie was by far the best of the 3 thus far.
|
i never watch any of that shit but i want to flame u about it or something. it's cool to hate this harry potter shit i really dont know why.. maybe cnn taught me to. i dont think so tho, all the medias always are riding harry potters broomstick or something smiling and saying how gr8 it is so i guess the faction that doesnt like harry potter is the anti-whatever the media seems to be saying faction. um. oh yeah there was this gay guy and he was really goofy he was from new hampshire and gay and guess what he asked me if i read harry potter, i think thats a gay pickup line, so i was like NO IM NOT GAY JESUS CHRIST..... so basically harry potter is prolly secretly some gay paraphenialia.. beware.
|
hovz is just jealous because he doesn't know how to read -.-
|
United States33394 Posts
On June 05 2004 07:28 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
oh yeah there was this gay guy and he was really goofy he was from new hampshire and gay and guess what he asked me if i read harry potter, i think thats a gay pickup line, so i was like NO IM NOT GAY JESUS CHRIST.....
oh good lord
you are god :D
|
On June 05 2004 07:24 KiLLme1st- wrote:
I saw the movie at midnight, with a bunch of friends. I enjoyed myself, I don't go see these movies for great acting or an awesome story I see them for eye candy. The special effects are good and make the movie interesting. I must say I live right next to OSU, and our biggest theatre which is 24 screens sold out 20 of them for the midnight showing, and it was mostly college students my age. I go see movies for entertainment not based on whether I am gonna be "cool" or not if I see them. Anyone who says you are not "cool" for seeing a movie should set themselves on fire and die.
On a sidenote you could definetly tell a difference from this movie as apposed to the others due to the new director. This movie was by far the best of the 3 thus far.
i agree, Emma Watson (Hermione) is all the eye candy i need.
|
On June 05 2004 07:42 Waxangel wrote: Show nested quote +On June 05 2004 07:28 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
oh yeah there was this gay guy and he was really goofy he was from new hampshire and gay and guess what he asked me if i read harry potter, i think thats a gay pickup line, so i was like NO IM NOT GAY JESUS CHRIST..... oh good lord you are god :D
rofl
|
On June 05 2004 07:44 BigBalls wrote: Show nested quote +On June 05 2004 07:24 KiLLme1st- wrote:
I saw the movie at midnight, with a bunch of friends. I enjoyed myself, I don't go see these movies for great acting or an awesome story I see them for eye candy. The special effects are good and make the movie interesting. I must say I live right next to OSU, and our biggest theatre which is 24 screens sold out 20 of them for the midnight showing, and it was mostly college students my age. I go see movies for entertainment not based on whether I am gonna be "cool" or not if I see them. Anyone who says you are not "cool" for seeing a movie should set themselves on fire and die.
On a sidenote you could definetly tell a difference from this movie as apposed to the others due to the new director. This movie was by far the best of the 3 thus far. i agree, Emma Watson (Hermione) is all the eye candy i need.
i think she's only 14 years old guys t.t
|
does anyone know anyone who actually read the books and then STILL didnt like them?
|
don't think I know anyone that read the books and dislikes them
but I know many that read the books and dislike the movies.
|
yea i didnt read any of the books but i saw most of the first one, and the third movie seems a bit more 'grownup' than the first one seemed to be.
|
On June 05 2004 08:34 [pG]Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
don't think I know anyone that read the books and dislikes them
but I know many that read the books and dislike the movies.
but this is not different from the norm with MANY books that are made into movies
|
lotr > harry potter in books and movies. Thats all I have to say.
|
On June 05 2004 09:06 Slaughter)BiO wrote:
lotr > harry potter in books and movies. Thats all I have to say.
so there actually exist books that are better then harry potter?
damn, my worlds fallin apart.
|
I read all four books of Harry Potter and I regret doing so. I read them a long time ago though and I think I read it mostly because of the hype. The books are not well written and overall the plot is sub par. It's always "omg harry, no matter what kind of trouble you're in, your mother's love will save you!!!!one11"
|
why did you read all 4 then if you didnt like the first?
|
err that wasnt the plot of azkaban.
|
Well my sister likes the series a lot, so that's how we got the books. Then I read the first one, and I was a little intrigued, but from then I read it mostly due to the hype. For me, it got boring after the 2nd one. But they're all still "readable" books.
|
So much harry potter bashing. Books 1 & 2 are for kids. 3 and onwards are for an older crowd and are incredible literary pieces. They're incredibly entertaining books, and the 4th one ranks high on my best book of all time list. Keep in mind this is not coming from a teeny bopper who's still struggling with puberty and the opinions of others, but a 20 year old who's been an avid reader his entire life, having grown up on Stephen King, Bernard Cornwell, and just about every classic you can think of, I've read. Despite that, this "kid crap" as most of you think, ranks among the best in literature. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if most of you would rather whatch the latest in reality tv from fox than read a book, so my opinions are lost entirely upon you.
|
On June 05 2004 10:00 EAGER-beaver wrote:
So much harry potter bashing. Books 1 & 2 are for kids. 3 and onwards are for an older crowd and are incredible literary pieces.
lmao. They're all clearly aimed at kids. LOOK AT THE DICTION.
They're incredibly entertaining books, and the 4th one ranks high on my best book of all time list. Keep in mind this is not coming from a teeny bopper who's still struggling with puberty and the opinions of others, but a 20 year old who's been an avid reader his entire life, having grown up on Stephen King, Bernard Cornwell, and just about every classic you can think of, I've read. Despite that, this "kid crap" as most of you think, ranks among the best in literature. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if most of you would rather whatch the latest in reality tv from fox than read a book, so my opinions are lost entirely upon you.
From a guy who has supposedly been an avid reader all his life, I find it very weird that you regard Harry Potter so highly. You are a unique case for sure if you have in fact "grown up on just about every classic that [I can] think of" and still think this.
In my opinion though, Harry Potter lacks the many components that would qualify it as a good book.
|
and what would those components be that it lacks?
|
I just saw the movie and.. I think it was great. I didn't really like the two previous.. it was a bit childish IMO but this one is a little more dark and mysterious. It's not the same director and it reflects in the movie. And yea it's eye candy.
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...
|
it's a kiddies book.
"When I rule the world I'm ordering all Harry Potter fans over [12] to march into the sea..."
|
lotr was originally meant as a kids story, and we all know that's a fucking masterpiece
dunno what my point is, but think about it anyway
|
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.
|
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?
|
did i mention look at the diction?
i'm currently reading the sea wolf by jack london.
|
i dont really find the diction subpar, do you have any exemples?
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.
|
im giong to start the idiot (dostoevsky) today!
|
yay, we all read heavy literature.
but harry potter still owns.
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
i think everyone pretty much knows that kids like harry potter a lot, but why does that make them bad books?
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
why does it lack sophistication?
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.
|
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.
|
im going to keep making you repeat yourself until you give me one concrete argument instead of empty phrases k?
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?
|
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
|
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. All the characters are annoying and dumb and just lame beyond belief.
|
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.
|
On June 05 2004 12:19 ItchReliever wrote: Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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
ok, you cant analyze the whole book, then stop making dumb general statements like harry potter books are have no form of sophistication, harry potter books dont have different levels,...
well, i do think that i enjoy harry potter books on a completely different level then my 12 year old nephew.
and i also know people who dont like harry potter, but i know more people that DO like them.
and youre right that they dont take long to read, but if you start to read harry potter, you dont expect a war and peace, but you do get a great book. i dont really see why short to read=bad book, because it is still a children book, which generally are easier to read, but the fact that it is a children book doesnt mean you cant enjoy it as a 19 year old.
btw, i quoted youre post, are you happy now?
|
No, I'm not happy because you didn't use the quoting system properly.
I really think that I have said enough, that anybody with a brain would have fully understood me by now. But I'll continue if you so desire.
|
what does it matter?
you dont remember what you wrote 5 minutes ago?
|
Hey, what is the problem here. If you don't like the book, that's ur opinion and you don't have to read it and/or watch the movie.
And as far as the books being for kids, yes, it is aimed at younger audience, I'm not saying it isn't. But the thing that makes the book good is that an older audience can enjoy it too, that's what separate these books from other young adults fictions.
And about an older reader enjoying Harry Potter making him gay, I don't see how that work.... They just have an open minded view when it comes to reading different stuff. You really wanna know what's gay? read below
On June 05 2004 01:24 Servolisk wrote:
Normally it is retarded to flame others for their preference of books, but Harry Potter is the exception. It was bad enough that enough people liked the teletubby equivalent of books, maybe if you would be secretly ashamed and keep quiet no one would dislike you, but you bring the flames on yourself when you band together with your other deviants and try to shove the gayest thing since the san francisco gay men's choir down our throats.
it would be less gay if he has any idea how to write in english, or being coherent. Or it might not...
The bottom line is, you have no right to judge anyone based on their interest, especially if you have no background knowledge in that subject matter.
|
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."
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.
Because you did not quote me, you did not address this part of my post.
I fail to see the "different levels" that exist in Harry Potter.
|
On June 05 2004 12:38 ItchReliever wrote: Show nested quote +
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."
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.
Because you did not quote me, you did not address this part of my post. I fail to see the "different levels" that exist in Harry Potter.
Not all books have to have a "deeper meaning" to be enjoyable. In fact, all of the modern fiction novels nowadays has no deeper meaning whatsoever, I'm talking about the likes of Grisham, King, etc. Yet they attracted many adult readers. To me, those novels are no better/different than Harry Potter, might be even worse since they're not as imaginative and usually so very cliche.
|
Yea, but he said that there were "different levels" in Harry Potter. ~_~ So what you just said is pretty much irrelevant.
|
On June 05 2004 12:37 BerZergKer wrote:
Hey, what is the problem here. If you don't like the book, that's ur opinion and you don't have to read it and/or watch the movie.
No fucking crap, but this is what we like to call a discussion.
|
so what are you saying? that i enjoy the book in THE EXACT SAME WAY as my little 12 year old nephew?
sorry, but that doesnt make any sense. its obvious that i enjoy them in another way. i mean, he loved the movies, because the movies focused on the aspects of the books that he liked, but i didnt really like the movies much, i only enjoyed them because i read the books.
really, if you had a Latour everyday, youd be craving for a beer.
|
Dealer
Sweden1368 Posts
The first three books were decent, but the fourth and fifth are very good.
|
On June 05 2004 12:50 Dealer wrote:
The first three books were decent, but the fourth and fifth are very good.
yeah, i think so.
|
On June 05 2004 12:48 ItchReliever wrote: Show nested quote +On June 05 2004 12:37 BerZergKer wrote:
Hey, what is the problem here. If you don't like the book, that's ur opinion and you don't have to read it and/or watch the movie. No fucking crap, but this is what we like to call a discussion.
well, my bad, just seems that the discussion, even if resolved, would not benefit anyone. and if whoever you're discussing against (this forum is so crowded ) said that Harry Potter has "different levels" of comprehension, he's an idiot. True you won't experience it in the same way as ur 10 yr old sister, but in the end you both understood equal amount of information, assuming she reads it carefully and not word-skip-word
|
On June 05 2004 12:49 pfff wrote:
so what are you saying? that i enjoy the book in THE EXACT SAME WAY as my little 12 year old nephew?
sorry, but that doesnt make any sense. its obvious that i enjoy them in another way.
How do you enjoy it in a differnt way? In Gulliver's Travels, when you read it when you're young, it is nothing more than an adventure story. When you read it later though, you notice the vast symbolism and the extensive satirical content. Can you say the same for Harry Potter? NO. HARRY POTTER ISN'T SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH.
really, if you had a Latour everyday, youd be craving for a beer.
wtf does that mean?
|
[QUOTE]On June 05 2004 12:57 BerZergKer wrote:
[quote]well, my bad, just seems that the discussion, even if resolved, would not benefit anyone. and if whoever you're discussing against (this forum is so crowded ) said that Harry Potter has "different levels" of comprehension, he's an idiot.[/QUOTE]
Then according to you, Pfff is an idiot. And I would wholeheartedly agree.
|
really, if you had a Latour everyday, youd be craving for a beer.
wtf does that mean?[/QUOTE]
yeah, wtf ?
|
chateau latour is an estate that has produced some of the best wines ever. it means that sophisticated isnt a synonim of good, cuz most of the times youd rather drink a beer then an expensive, sophisticated wine like a latour ok?
cuz it seems like you are using sophisticated and good as synonims which is not true at all.
and i dont mean that harry potter is a satire or has deeper symbolism in it like gullivers travel or animal farm.
with different levels i mean that there are elements in it that a 12 year old will not notice nor understand, and this is why the books can be enjoyed by a younger and an older audience.
|
Russian Federation1020 Posts
|
On June 05 2004 13:01 pfff wrote:
chateau latour is an estate that has produced some of the best wines ever. it means that sophisticated isnt a synonim of good, cuz most of the times youd rather drink a beer then an expensive, sophisticated wine like a latour ok?
cuz it seems like you are using sophisticated and good as synonims which is not true at all.
Whether sophistication equates to good or not is an entirely different debate. I made it explicitly clear that Harry Potter is an average book that lacks sophistication. I even kept using the same word so that you wont be misled.
and i dont mean that harry potter is a satire or has deeper symbolism in it like gullivers travel or animal farm.
with different levels i mean that there are elements in it that a 12 year old will not notice nor understand, and this is why the books can be enjoyed by a younger and an older audience.
Such as?
|
as you said yourself, im not going to analyze the whole book just to prove a point to you.
but you can not be serious that a 12 year old has the exact same mindset as me.
when did unsophisticated equal average?
i dont really see why a book has to be sophisticated to be a great book, nor do i see why a book should be sophisticated to be enjoyed by both younger and older people
|
On June 05 2004 01:24 Servolisk wrote:
Normally it is retarded to flame others for their preference of books, but Harry Potter is the exception. It was bad enough that enough people liked the teletubby equivalent of books.
The books seem unsophisticated at first but when you look at them, a little deeper you see economic and social tensions with prejudice. I guess for me I connected to the characters. The problem with what Servolisk said, was that he didn't just state that he didn't like Harry Potter, he stated that anyone who did was an idiot, if they weren't a child and deserved to be sentenced to death (kidding or not).
Maybe if you would be secretly ashamed and keep quiet no one would dislike you, but you bring the flames on yourself when you band together with your other deviants and try to shove the gayest thing since the san francisco gay men's choir down our throats.
We didn't try to shove anything down anyones throats, was this a harry potter recruitment thread? No, it was a discussion about the movie, which turned into you telling people on one hand that you think its stupid to flame people for preferring one type of books, but then saying that we are the exception and we deserve to die. Stop harping on people who enjoy things you don't enjoy, or understand why they enjoy it. I feel different after reading the book than you do, does that mean I deserve to be told I'm an unsophisticated idiot?
So for once I'm going to do something I rarely do on these forums, and say fuck off Servolisk.
|
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... -_-
|
yeah, i noticed only people who LOVE the books like part 5.
people who just 'like' the books find it not so great.
|
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?
|
Yes, they are children's books, but does that mean that adults can not enjoy them too?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 04 2004 21:55 [pG]Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Show nested quote +On June 04 2004 21:51 Servolisk wrote:
When I rule the world I'm ordering all Harry Potter fans over 8 to march into the sea... gold
New quote :D
|
|
|
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.
|
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
|
Netherlands2766 Posts
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!
|
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.
|
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.
|
and ItchReliever all of your arguements suck, stop embarressing yourself.
|
So I guess Harry Potter is good because you say it is? Stfu, stop beating a dead horse, you ignorant idiot.
|
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..
|
i cant stand reading, but i sure as hell love the harry potter books. there is just something special about them.
|
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.
|
is harry potter high art or low art?
|
|
|
On June 13 2004 01:33 AnOther wrote:
potter sucks =(
|
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.
|
On June 13 2004 01:38 baal wrote:
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.
Ever heard of this nifty thing called 'Logic'? You should use it sometime.
|
Austin10831 Posts
It's funny, Itch. You say Harry Potter is a book for juveniles, yet I read Jack London books when I was in fifth and sixth grade...
|
u know, a lot of the "classics" are simply outdated "low art". shakespeare never meant to appease academia. he was writing to please the rabble. the same can be said of most novels in general. they wanted to sell tickets/copies. the same of older films. that doesn't mean there is no substance to them, of course. the point is that the standard for "substance" changes over the years. in 100 years harry potter could be something english teachers force people to read. you really dont know.
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
OH MY GOD PEOPLE CAN"T HAVE THEIR OWN OPINIONS WTF ?
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
On June 13 2004 01:20 Commander[SB] wrote: Show nested quote +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'
If you read my posts, you would realize that this is not true.
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
The entire point of this thread is that it may be your opinion that they are mediocre but the way you presented your opinion was matter-of-factly. Also, the majority of people who were saying they didn't like HP wasn't the issue, the issue was when some were saying people who do like it are idiots and lack sophistication as in baal's post or that we are losers like HovZ said, not to mention Servolisk's. It wouldn't be such a big thing if you hadn't presented your opinion as definite truth.
|
But it is a "definite truth" that Harry Potter lacks sophistication. This is not a matter of opinion.
I don't care if you guys like Harry Potter or not though, and I never said I did in this thread either. I'm not stupid enough to judge a person's character and intellect by what books they read.
|
On June 13 2004 22:20 ItchReliever wrote:
I'm not stupid enough to judge a person's character and intellect by what books they read.
... character no, intellect sure.
|
On June 13 2004 01:39 Commander[SB] wrote: Show nested quote +On June 13 2004 01:38 baal wrote:
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. Ever heard of this nifty thing called 'Logic'? You should use it sometime.
oh plz teach me harry -_________-;
|
On June 13 2004 22:25 Kobayashi wrote: Show nested quote +On June 13 2004 22:20 ItchReliever wrote:
I'm not stupid enough to judge a person's character and intellect by what books they read.
... character no, intellect sure.
It's a one-way street. If a person reads heavy literature, then they are probably smart. But a person doesn't have to like reading to be smart.
I can like reading Harry Potter and still be a smart person.
|
On June 13 2004 22:34 baal wrote: Show nested quote +On June 13 2004 01:39 Commander[SB] wrote: On June 13 2004 01:38 baal wrote:
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. Ever heard of this nifty thing called 'Logic'? You should use it sometime. oh plz teach me harry -_________-;
Ok. But I am expensive.
Now I have to go fucking drag up Itch's old posts to prove his dumbass wrong.
|
On June 05 2004 10:24 ItchReliever wrote: Show nested quote +On June 05 2004 10:00 EAGER-beaver wrote:
So much harry potter bashing. Books 1 & 2 are for kids. 3 and onwards are for an older crowd and are incredible literary pieces. lmao. They're all clearly aimed at kids. LOOK AT THE DICTION. Show nested quote +They're incredibly entertaining books, and the 4th one ranks high on my best book of all time list. Keep in mind this is not coming from a teeny bopper who's still struggling with puberty and the opinions of others, but a 20 year old who's been an avid reader his entire life, having grown up on Stephen King, Bernard Cornwell, and just about every classic you can think of, I've read. Despite that, this "kid crap" as most of you think, ranks among the best in literature. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if most of you would rather whatch the latest in reality tv from fox than read a book, so my opinions are lost entirely upon you. From a guy who has supposedly been an avid reader all his life, I find it very weird that you regard Harry Potter so highly. You are a unique case for sure if you have in fact "grown up on just about every classic that [I can] think of" and still think this. In my opinion though, Harry Potter lacks the many components that would qualify it as a good book.
You first say.
Than you say:
and even if it would lack sophistication, then that still doesnt make it a bad book.
So which is it? A good book or a bad book? Make up your fucking mind.
edit: Ok itch I am wrong about some things. I rushed through your posts and mis-understood them the first time. You just say everything 'matter-of-factly' and you can't seem to make up your fucking mind.
|
It's very obvious that I don't think Harry Potter is a very good book. But I also made it exceedingly clear that Harry Potter is not a horrible book either. And if you actually read my posts, you would have noticed that I keep mentioning that Harry Potter is an average book of mediocre quality.
Commander, you are one of the most imbecilic people that I had the displeasure of meeting online.
|
On June 14 2004 00:48 Commander[SB] wrote:
edit: Ok itch I am wrong about some things. I rushed through your posts and mis-understood them the first time. You just say everything 'matter-of-factly' and you can't seem to make up your fucking mind.
specify
|
On June 14 2004 01:02 ItchReliever wrote:
It's very obvious that I don't think Harry Potter is a very good book. But I also made it exceedingly clear that Harry Potter is not a horrible book either. And if you actually read my posts, you would have noticed that I keep mentioning that Harry Potter is an average book of mediocre quality.
Commander, you are one of the most imbecilic people that I had the displeasure of meeting online.
same.
|
On June 14 2004 01:04 ItchReliever wrote: Show nested quote +On June 14 2004 00:48 Commander[SB] wrote:
edit: Ok itch I am wrong about some things. I rushed through your posts and mis-understood them the first time. You just say everything 'matter-of-factly' and you can't seem to make up your fucking mind. specify
No.
|
|
|
Thats it. Ok. I am done, your right and I am wrong. happy?
This arguement has gone far beyond redundant and retarted.
|
Both of you suck at arguing.
Itch you suck at Flaming, Commander > you in that hands down.
Even though it's still a bannable offense.
Anyways, you guys made this thread worth closing !
|
Lol how do I suck at flaming. Was I too nice or what 
|
Go away.
|
I hope I don't get banned just because I argued with a few people.
Nice edit, btw. The smiley makes it much more tolerable.
|
Austin10831 Posts
I hope you do.
|
On June 14 2004 01:16 ItchReliever wrote:
I hope I don't get banned just because I argued with a few people.
Nice edit, btw. The smiley makes it much more tolerable.
Yeah, I know I noticed I came off as an asshole, but the smiley helps make it like, all innocent like and shit.
|
I hope you do.
Well I hope I don't. ""
|
Austin10831 Posts
So what summer reading titles will you impress us with next Itch?
|
I'm not a very avid reader.
|
Austin10831 Posts
I must say, I'm not at all surprised.
|
That just destroyed all your arguments, avid readers know what they're talking about.
You don't.
|
I know what I'm talking about. Prove me wrong instead of just typing some inane flame.
Why can't you "old timers" ever side with the newb for once? You guys just backed Stimey and Commander just because they have been here for a longer period of time and had more posts. It didn't even matter that Stimey attempted to jack Munkey's thread and that Commander here was just being plain rude.
|
On June 14 2004 01:21 BroOd wrote:
I must say, I'm not at all surprised.
But I bet I have read more than you have. You asshole.
|
It wasn't an inane flame. I told you to go away about the arguments to be nice saying that you weren't doing very well arguing. Commander would've continued putting down each attempt you made a 'non avid readers' comment. But, he's not going to waste his time with your persistance (which I think is cool, btw). Not to mention the fact that you speak like you're talking pure facts rather than opinion, or so it seems to me anyways.
On top of that, you're always trying to get the last word regardless of anything anyways.
Go away man.
|
On June 14 2004 01:27 ItchReliever wrote: But I bet I have read more than you have. You asshole.
That was a deliberate flame. 
|
Austin10831 Posts
On June 14 2004 01:27 ItchReliever wrote: But I bet I have read more than you have. You asshole.
I'd bet you haven't. Save your junior-critic bullshit for your community college english 101. You haven't made a single valid point in this entire thread, and you get abrasive when people don't side with you. What the fuck did you expect? Calling me an asshole because you're a hypocrite.
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
On June 14 2004 01:28 Mydnyte wrote: Show nested quote +On June 14 2004 01:27 ItchReliever wrote: On June 14 2004 01:21 BroOd wrote:
I must say, I'm not at all surprised. But I bet I have read more than you have. You asshole. That was a deliberate flame.
I realized that people didn't appreciate my non flaming posts. And he was provoking me for no reason.
|
Harry Potter is directed towards kids.
Are kids sophisticated?
|
On June 14 2004 01:34 Mydnyte wrote:
Harry Potter is directed towards kids.
Are kids sophisticated?
maybe at first that was rowling's intention, but i'm not so sure about that now
|
Yeah, that's true. Alot of adults did start reading that book.
But the first book isn't as in depth as 2-4 are. Or so I think.
And yes, I've read all 4 about 3 years ago.
|
On June 14 2004 01:33 BroOd wrote: Show nested quote +On June 14 2004 01:27 ItchReliever wrote: On June 14 2004 01:21 BroOd wrote:
I must say, I'm not at all surprised. But I bet I have read more than you have. You asshole. I'd bet you haven't. Save your junior-critic bullshit for your community college english 101. You haven't made a single valid point in this entire thread, and you get abrasive when people don't side with you. What the fuck did you expect? Calling me an asshole because you're a hypocrite.
Lol, I'm still in high school, not in community college. I got 1300 something in PSATs when I took it during my freshman year. I'm aiming for at least a 1500 when I take it next year, so no I wont be attending a community college. thx.
|
there is a fifth as well =P
|
On June 14 2004 01:34 Mydnyte wrote:
Harry Potter is directed towards kids.
Are kids sophisticated?
I hope you realize that you're agreeing with me.
|
|
|
200 points is kind of hard, albeit not impossible. good luck on that and good thing the psat requires no debate skills
|
Austin10831 Posts
On June 14 2004 01:38 ItchReliever wrote: Show nested quote +On June 14 2004 01:33 BroOd wrote: On June 14 2004 01:27 ItchReliever wrote: On June 14 2004 01:21 BroOd wrote:
I must say, I'm not at all surprised. But I bet I have read more than you have. You asshole. I'd bet you haven't. Save your junior-critic bullshit for your community college english 101. You haven't made a single valid point in this entire thread, and you get abrasive when people don't side with you. What the fuck did you expect? Calling me an asshole because you're a hypocrite. Lol, I'm still in high school, not in community college. I got 1300 something in PSATs when I took it during my freshman year. I'm aiming for at least a 1500 when I take it next year, so no I wont be attending a community college. thx.
Would you like me to pat you on the back and tell you how smart you are or something? You picked the most immaterial part of my post to respond to, which I guess I'll have to chalk up to poor reading comprehension. But then again... I guess that's been abundantly clear for some time now.
|
Guys he said it himself. He is argueing for the sake of argueing. He's not worth your time.
|
mydnyte, i'd say the fifth is one of the best books, either the third or the fifth. rowling keeps making each successive book longer though, i think order of the phoenix is 800+ pages
|
On June 14 2004 01:41 BroOd wrote: Show nested quote +On June 14 2004 01:38 ItchReliever wrote: On June 14 2004 01:33 BroOd wrote: On June 14 2004 01:27 ItchReliever wrote: On June 14 2004 01:21 BroOd wrote:
I must say, I'm not at all surprised. But I bet I have read more than you have. You asshole. I'd bet you haven't. Save your junior-critic bullshit for your community college english 101. You haven't made a single valid point in this entire thread, and you get abrasive when people don't side with you. What the fuck did you expect? Calling me an asshole because you're a hypocrite. Lol, I'm still in high school, not in community college. I got 1300 something in PSATs when I took it during my freshman year. I'm aiming for at least a 1500 when I take it next year, so no I wont be attending a community college. thx. Would you like me to pat you on the back and tell you how smart you are or something? You picked the most immaterial part of my post to respond to, which I guess I'll have to chalk up to poor reading comprehension. But then again... I guess that's been abundantly clear for some time now.
Everything else that you said is bs. I haven't made a single valid point you say? Wtf, I disagree. DUH
And you're the one who assumed that I attended a community college, which is an insult in my opinion.
|
Austin10831 Posts
Empirical evidence would suggest you're on your way there, if not already. Maybe you should leave the literary discussions to people who actually read, and continue "practicing arguing" in meaningless threads.
|
Oh and itch, here is a warning, not a flame:
If you continue to 'argue for the sake of argueing' and an admin gets involed, you probably WILL get banned. Its happened before. Learn how to admit your wrong, and know when to stop.
|
I don't practice arguing, I just said that the only way to get better is by practice when Mydyte told me I suck at it.
And I do read (more than Brood) so I think I have the "right" to post here, thx.
|
Austin10831 Posts
On June 14 2004 01:48 ItchReliever wrote:
I don't practice arguing, I just that the only way to get better is by practice.
And I do read (more than Brood) so I think I have the "right" to post here, thx.
You already said you weren't an avid reader. Were you lying then or now?
|
Dealer
Sweden1368 Posts
Btw, anyone know any dates for the sixth book?
|
I don't especially like to read, but I have read more than enough to post here. And I'm willing to bet that I have read more than you have.
|
Both you cannot prove that to one another.
|
And that shouldn't even matter. What I posted were all valid opinions.
|
yeah really, stop being little girls
|
Austin10831 Posts
He's just trying to save some semblance of dignity.
|
On June 14 2004 01:56 ItchReliever wrote:
And that shouldn't even matter. What I posted were all valid opinions.
yes, VALID OPINIONS. get over the fact that others have different opinions and ignore the flames, you are getting no where
|
Stop saying things so "matter of factly". WHhhhaaaaaaaa
|
On June 14 2004 01:57 tiffany wrote: Show nested quote +On June 14 2004 01:56 ItchReliever wrote:
And that shouldn't even matter. What I posted were all valid opinions. yes, VALID OPINIONS. get over the fact that others have different opinions and ignore the flames, you are getting no where
I can't post because we all have different opinions? Lol?
|
On June 04 2004 21:57 GoDHovZ wrote: ken kaniff from connecticut..... how can anyone over the age of 12 call themselves a die hard harry potter fan and look at themselves in the mirror 
how can someonw judge something that he doesnt even know?
how about stfu faggot.
|
On June 14 2004 03:49 jacen wrote: Show nested quote +On June 04 2004 21:57 GoDHovZ wrote: ken kaniff from connecticut..... how can anyone over the age of 12 call themselves a die hard harry potter fan and look at themselves in the mirror how can someonw judge something that he doesnt even know? how about stfu faggot.
You dont need a black penis inserted in your anus to know you wont like it :p
|
|
|
WHO PLAYED CHO CHANG??? WAS SHE HOT?? PICTURESS!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
