"Next Harry Potter book ready!"

Hmm, my money's on Harry. Then Hermione can take over, she's far more interesting than that bumbling idiot.

I'm pretty sure she's said that the Prince isn't Harry or Voldemort.

Neville... hmmmm... interesting...

UncleLou wrote:
How wrong you are. :)

And we agreed on the job thread earlier...... :-(

Come on though. Harry Potter is seriously for females and 10 yr old boys.

The last film was aweful, you have to admit. It was so forgettable its unbelie.....what am I talking about again?

otto wrote:

zErOb_cOOl wrote:
Simply, Harry Potter is the most unimaginative pile of crap I have ever watched.

The fact that you use the verb "watched" says it all...

Yeah I know, but I assume the film is a close adaptation to the book, such as Lord of the Rings....if you like the book, you like the film, and vise versa.

Well, I am 33, and male, and love the HP books.

:p

I haven't seen the movies.

The books steal from all kinds of sources, but are highly original nonetheless, well-written, witty, and with great plots. While the last book, for example, disappointed min in the last couple of chapters, the main plot was very good - basically explaining a "takeover" of power similar as the Nazis did in Germany. Now I realise I am stretching things a little with that comment, but there's much more to the HP books than meets the eye ar first glance. And that's more or less the definition of literature.

And apart from that, they're simply fun.

zErOb_cOOl wrote:

otto wrote:

zErOb_cOOl wrote:
Simply, Harry Potter is the most unimaginative pile of crap I have ever watched.

The fact that you use the verb "watched" says it all...

Yeah I know, but I assume the film is a close adaptation to the book, such as Lord of the Rings....if you like the book, you like the film, and vise versa.

Sorry, but what you just said is so entirely wrong that I don't even know where to start. :)

Adult books are all about how swanky and talented you are as a writer. Children's books are usually more about plot, and the upper end of children's fiction which transcendes into anybody's fiction (including Harry Potter) is sucsessful because it has excellent plots.

I'd much rather read a competently written book with an excellent story than a drab book with zero plot and lots of fancy language.

UncleLou wrote:

zErOb_cOOl wrote:

otto wrote:

zErOb_cOOl wrote:
Simply, Harry Potter is the most unimaginative pile of crap I have ever watched.

The fact that you use the verb "watched" says it all...

Yeah I know, but I assume the film is a close adaptation to the book, such as Lord of the Rings....if you like the book, you like the film, and vise versa.

Sorry, but what you just said is so entirely wrong that I don't even know where to start. :)

I've heard a lot of people complaining about the film adaptations of HP, but having finally gotten around to reading all 5 books a couple of months ago, I felt that films 1 & 2 are actually pretty close.

PoA had a large chunk of the plot cut out and I'm expecting GoF and OotP to be even worse, but the books are getting so long, that's to be expected.

Yes, but you can make a very close movie adaption of a great book and the movie can still be crap.

Movies concentrate on plots, books are much more than plots. Some of the greatest books of all time have hardly any plot - The MAgic mountain for example. There's a movie that's as close to that book as probably possible with the means of a movie, and yet (or because of that) it's a total failure.

Now of course the Potter books do have plots, but a movie will always take a lot away - the imagination of the reader, the thoughts of the characters, lots of subtleties, the language, etc. etc. etc.


So even from a movie adaption that's close to a book you can't judge the book.

edit: Btw, like I said, I haven't seen the movies, so I am not talking about them. I am just making a general point that you - usually - can't judge a book by a movie, even if it is a close adaption. :)


Edited by UncleLou at 17:00:02 16-06-2005

The first film was a bit amateurishly acted and maybe a bit too 'childish' (always dangerous to use that word with you lot :-))

The second film was pretty good, acting much improved, nice film.

The third film was dreary shit and I am unbelievably pleased they dumped the director.

I'm a Potter fan. I tried to ignore the craze that the sad kids were getting sucked into, but one day I bought the first four books and read them in a week: I was hooked!

The stuff I miss about the films is the day to day stuff, the mundane school activities, just takes me back to my school days. They've been as good as can be expected though. The adult cast has made most of them, I think Rickman's fantazzo.

I wasn't blown away by the recent (2003) potter book, thought it was good, but perhaps long for the sake of it. Favourite book and film so far are both Prisoner of Azkaban.

/reads Lou's post

/agrees

Edited by Bertie at 17:03:51 16-06-2005

otto wrote:
The Lord of the Rings was a perfect example. Superb book, utterly shit films, with the result that people judge the book by the films.

o_O Shit films??? Result being that people judge book by the film... Well I'd say that due to the HUGE international success of the films, more people have read the books because of it. The books are over written anyway, with pages and pages of unnecessary details. I think the films are superb... And I'm not alone.

Yes they now have Mike Newell. I am not sure he is a great choice, but it has to be better than the unfocused shite that Cuaron produced.

otto wrote:

MikeD wrote:
The third film was dreary shit and I am unbelievably pleased they dumped the director.

You're joking??? They dumped the director??

FFS just when you think Hollywood can't get any more fucking STUPID, they do. Burn Hollywood Burn. I loathe that fucking place.

They didn't dump the director at all. He is still interested in doing another one, just didn't want to come back on board straight after finishing POA.

M

Was I the only one who felt the last two books just dragged on for too long? I thought the first three were great but the only aim for each book seems to be how to make it longer. Usually by dragging out pointless scenes that add nothing to the story, one which is filled with predictable plot twists.

IMHO.

Yeah, just like CEO's leave most companies under friendly terms and by mutual decision. :-)

No, I am kidding, I'm sure that's true. But they have Mike newell for this oen and David yates for the next one(if imdb is reliable). So Cuaron isn't coming back for quite a while

otto wrote:
Incidentally it's the "unnecessary details" that make Tolkien so brilliant. If you ask me, if you don't like the detail then you don't get Tolkien. For him, it was all about those details.

Funnily enough, I didn't 'get' Tolkien, as you say. I prefer books a bit more to the point, but not too short. Like 1984, one of my favourite books.

otto wrote:
I'm really surprised by the negative comments about the third HP film. It was just so superior to the first two in every way. /shrug

it's just me that's negative about the third. :-)

So far it's my experience that people who have not read the books, like me, did not like the 3rd film very much and those that did liked it best.

Odd, isn't it.

I completely agree with you about LOTR, of course.

UncleLou wrote:

Neville Longbottom.

Mark my words.

Neville Longbottom.

It can't be Neville. He's a pure-blood. :)

DMJ wrote:

UncleLou wrote:

Neville Longbottom.

Mark my words.

Neville Longbottom.

It can't be Neville. He's a pure-blood. :)

There was a mistake with the blood test, of course.

Pfft...

;)

Knew I'd forgotten something. That's the last time I try to be clever...

:D

Odd thing, the Potter phenomina.

They really aren't very well written technically and she's getting /worse/ instead of better, which suggests she's getting a bit cocky and not paying much mind to improving her craft - or the deadlines are getting to her.

However, story trumps technical prowess and, for me at least, so does character. Harry is very slappable at the moment - I'm not sure if she meant him to become as unlikable as he is. It is very difficult to maintain sympathy with any character who is the sole viewpoint for such a long time and when you're the author, you love them even if they're bastards, you have to rely on proof readers and editors to supply objectivity.

I dislike this whole 'ooh, I'm going to kill someone' shit. The way she handled the last death was appalling, it was ...

*****Order of the Phoenix mild SPOILER*****
a bloody off-screen death of the weakest order. I also get the impression she did it the same way some authors will insert sex scenes to make their story seem more interesting when they really don't serve the plot much at all. If you're going to bump of a fairly major character, it should have all the impact and /inevitability/ of a runaway train. That whole section in the ministry of magic was set up to tease people who knew she was going to kill someone. The way Hermione got hit, the way Ron got left tackling the brains - it was cheap and annoying and I wish she hadn't felt the need to do it.
*****END SPOILER*****

I also wish she wouldn't go Agatha Christie at the end and have reams of recapping explainations - but she's done that since the get-go. Quirrel, Riddle, Hermione, Dumbledore, Crouch and Voldemort have all gone off into serious monologues that are just thinly disguised exposition of a terribly 'this is how the murderer did it' variety.

While I'm at it, she should be whipped every time she uses a 'ly' just to make her think about how often she steers around clear prose without having to fall back on Swifties.

Having said all that, I do want to know what happens - so she's achieved the main objective in storytelling. I want to know how it turns out and I am genuinely fond of many of the characters - particularly Neville, who seems far more heroic than Harry and Snape, who appears to have more depth than most of them, although I suspect she'll disappoint as soon as she expands on him - the idea of his /worst/ memory being humiliation in school seems pretty weak to me, this is a man...

***Hell, another Phoenix SPOILER, I guess*****
...who has crawled on hands and knees to kiss the robes of a master he is betraying. A master who uses his servants the way a pimp uses his whores, frequently torturing and humilating them while demanding total sacrifice and adoration. I find it hard to believe there isn't a worse memory somewhere in his service to Voldemort.
*****END SPOILER*****

... man, I went off on one there.

As for who dies next, since she's playing that game again - my money's on Percy, but I don't want to know for sure till I read it. I just hope the last bit isn't full of that 'ooh, will it be him? Or him? Or her?' near miss shit.

How can a series annoy me so much and yet enterain me just as much? Odd.

Next book: Harry Potter names his dick Happy Potter and goes round trying to cast a *different* kind of magic. Hermione's not interested as she's just discovered she's got a secret thing for Gingers.

...but the Ginge wants none of it as he's got a thing for Mavis Beacon. She does typing, you know.

Harry, getting more and more of a whiney prick turns to the dark side and winds up with his arms and legs cut off and his skin burned off with lava.

Film: As above, cert. PG. For use of the word c*nt.

Is it today?! O_O

Oh, 16th julyish, bah!

Not long to go now. \o_ *zap*

I love it all, I really do. I saw the first film again about 3 months back and AWWWW everyone is so YOUNG.

I think it's great. Looking forward to a book and then settling down on the sofa with tea, biscuits, book and no bugger about it just nirvana to me.

Nemesis wrote:
Not long to go now. \o_ *zap*

I love it all, I really do. I saw the first film again about 3 months back and AWWWW everyone is so YOUNG.

I think it's great. Looking forward to a book and then settling down on the sofa with tea, biscuits, book and no bugger about it just nirvana to me.

Amen to that.

I'm actually having the day off for Jasper Fforde's next release. For that very reason. Woe betide that bitch next door if she has the day off too and starts up.

Peej

zErOb_cOOl wrote:
Simply, Harry Potter is the most unimaginative pile of crap I have ever watched.

The fact that you use the verb "watched" says it all...

zErOb_cOOl wrote:
Yeah I know, but I assume the film is a close adaptation to the book, such as Lord of the Rings....if you like the book, you like the film, and vise versa.

Oh boy...

The Lord of the Rings was a perfect example. Superb book, utterly shit films, with the result that people judge the book by the films.

Harry Potter - two shit films, one pretty good one (the last one). Ditto.

For Christ's sake stop confusing films with books. Comment on the films, or comment on the books, but don't think you can comment on the one by referring to the other. If you haven't read the HP books, you're not qualified to give an opinion on them.

With the HP films, I thought the first two were appalling while the third one really impressed me. The issue for me wasn't so much what was left in and what was left out, it was more a question of atmosphere and direction. The first two were cheesy melodramas, the third was far better in recreating the mood of the books (imho). I had the same criticism of the LOTR films. While they did a reasonably decent job of sticking to the plot, the way it was directed was toe-curlingly awful, with wooden actors milking every bit of melodrama.

Oh and I agree with UncleLou. :)