Harry Potter? I know him not.

BUREINPARESU · July 21, 2009, 07:27:23 AM

Grew out of it in Year 7, kinda wish I was still into it, the fans seem to have fun, then again it's not a fanbase I'd want to be a part of it I think.

Mr. DS · July 21, 2009, 08:32:34 AM

I thought Deathly Hallows stunk. The way it was written hit me as someone who had two novels planned but said "aw screw it" and rushed the ending. I'd argue its even more lousy than Order Of The Phoenix which really has no place in the whole series though I thought the film was brilliant.

Paquita · July 21, 2009, 09:25:12 AM

I freakin love Harry Potter and I'm not ashamed! I avoided it for years though because.. I don't know, I avoid popular things? Anyway, I thought it was stupid Barney kid stuff and I was p**sed because I liked wizards and dragons and I thought they were being dumbed down for kids but they really weren't! Harry Potter will tell you - A dragon will F'n kill you, man! I think JK Rowling is an A-hole though. She was obviously channelled by the Ministry of Magic to document the fact-based tale of Harry Potter which is why fan-fiction isn't tolerated.

Rev. Powell · July 21, 2009, 11:38:46 AM

Quote from: jimmybob on July 20, 2009, 07:53:11 PM
Has anyone seen the new movie? I must say Emma Watson is a fox.

-Jimmybob

Agreed.

I liked the movie, even though I had never read any of the books or seen any of the other movies. It was exactly what I expected, well-executed light entertainment built around a few easily recognizable archetypes and stock fantasy situations. Not bad at all, but you're not missing much if you skip the series either.

Mr. DS · July 21, 2009, 12:11:35 PM

Yes, Emma is fine looking and still blossoming into womanwood. She'll more than likely have a Liz Hurley thing going on.

venomx · July 21, 2009, 08:35:53 PM

I just got back from the movies, Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince was awesome and I dont even like Harry Potter movies or books! I had to see it. My Wife loves the books so you see I had to go, But Im so glad I did, I just loved the movie ... Im a fan now.

A+ visual effects, just brilliant. "Merlin's Beard!" It was good!

RCMerchant · July 23, 2009, 04:47:35 AM

Never seen the movies or read the books. Just not my cup of tea. Nor any of the LOTR's books or films. Both have been recommended to me-but just not into it,I guess.

darthchicken · July 24, 2009, 08:56:15 AM

Having just graduated from High School, I grew up with the Harry Potter craze, I think the first book came out when I was in second grade (?).. I read the first four books, and saw those movies. I thought they were all good, but I'm lazy and don't feel like reading the other ones.. So I just had my friends give me a plot synopsis. I realize that they borrow from mythology, but so does every other fantasy book / movie / anything. I should probably watch the other movies sometime because I liked the first four. My one complaint is that the guy who plays Ron kind of bugs me.

The Burgomaster · July 24, 2009, 12:42:54 PM

Quote from: darthchicken on July 24, 2009, 08:56:15 AM
Having just graduated from High School, I grew up with the Harry Potter craze, I think the first book came out when I was in second grade (?)..

Enough of that, now! You're making me feel like an old bastard . . . maybe even an inglorious one . . .

p1zl3 · July 28, 2009, 01:44:25 PM

I was dragged to one of those Potter films (I think it was the 2nd one) by a girlfriend of mine. It was OK I guess, but the film was muddled by interpersonal dialogue... The phrase; "WHAT THE F*CK AM I DOING HERE!?!?!" seemed to keep racing across my mind. I guess it would have been better if I were able to shut off my brain.

...in summation: gay. (proof below)

Mr. DS · July 29, 2009, 07:10:44 AM

I just saw the Half Blood Prince last night. It is easily one of the best movie (if not the best) out of the whole series. That's primarily due to the fact that Director David Yates gets what he's working with and has done his homework on the book. Where the directors of Prisoner and Goblet seem to be copying Christopher Columbus's work in the first two films, Yates took the series where it needed to go; into a creepy and dark realm. However, he knows when to step back with subtle humor that doesn't go into Jar Jar Binks territory.

SPOILERS

I felt that the movie got away from the central theme of the book which was Harry and Dumbledore's know your enemy type of training. For example, I don't know why they didn't include the memory of the Gaunt House. It kind of gives back story into what Voldermort uses as objects to manifest his soul into.

Snape, for the non-reader, kind of made his intentions pretty obvious within the film. I was hoping he would have off'd Dumbledore in a more cold way. Also, I was hoping they would have done more with Greyback. He just kind of comes off as a big ugly dude and note a werewolf responsible for Lupin's condition.

Other than that, the film was pretty much flawless.

END SPOILERS

The cast, as in the past films, were perfect for their roles. I enjoyed the girl who played Lavender because she took things way over the top. It was one of those roles where one had to and for once in a long time, I enjoyed the comic relief person of the film. Speaking of which, the girl who plays Luna rocks.

Jack · July 31, 2009, 07:21:21 AM

I was trying to watch part 4 last night, it actually seemed like a pretty darned good movie. Unfortunately it was on the Family channel. As if commercial breaks every ten minutes weren't enough, at the two hour mark they must have showed 15 solid minutes of commercials, then 5 minutes of the movie, then more commercials. I turned it off and ordered the flippin' DVD. TV is absolutely unwatchable these days.

If anyone wants to know anything about any show that will be broadcast on the Family Channel for the next three months, just ask.

BoyScoutKevin · August 11, 2009, 04:36:50 PM

Having once worked for a company that distributed books, now retired, we use to hold an after Midnight party, when ever a new Harry Potter came out. And I always tried to be there, because it was a fun time. If only to see our customers come as their favorite character from Harry Potter.

Having said that, I'll give Rowling chops for writing something that touched alot of people.

But, having said that, she has never wrote anything that touched me. Thus, I have no interest in reading any of the books nor seeing any of the films in their entirity.

I would also add that seeing some of his performance as Harry Potter and some other things he has done, I'm singularly unimpressed by Daniel Radcliffe's acting ability.

But, the most recent film is on its way, at last word, to being the second highest grosser in the series, and the fourth highest grosser of this year. Thus, they'll probably finish out the series in one or two films.

The series itself I find of interest. The first film was released in 2001, so it's been eight years. And with one or two more films coming out, it'll be 2010 or 2011, before the series is finished. The only A-film series of six or more films, where the main character was always played by the same actor, that I can remember, which ran longer, was the "Thin Man" series w/ William Powell and Myrna Loy, which ran from 1934 to 1947.

But, if one can't wait for the next film Universal in Orlando is spending $200 million to turn 20 acres of Islands of Adventure theme park into The Wizardry World of Harry Potter, and it should open in 2010.

If one does one's math, that is $10 million dollars per acre. And it was only 45 years ago that the Disney brothers were buying up land in that area for the unheard of price of $200 per acre. Now, if you have to ask what the price of land is in that area, you can't afford it.

Jim H · August 12, 2009, 01:23:15 AM

"The only A-film series of six or more films, where the main character was always played by the same actor, that I can remember, which ran longer, was the "Thin Man" series w/ William Powell and Myrna Loy, which ran from 1934 to 1947."

You make a good point, but the other one with six that springs to mind is Rocky. I'd also call the Star Trek films A films.

Other than that though, it's mostly low budget horror/action films, etc, that get long running series of films with the same lead actor. For example, martial arts films, which sometimes have numerous entries in one series in a single year (back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s that is).

In recent memory though, Rocky Balboa is really the only one I can think of.

BoyScoutKevin · September 01, 2009, 07:53:19 PM

Quote from: Jim H on August 12, 2009, 01:23:15 AM
"The only A-film series of six or more films, where the main character was always played by the same actor, that I can remember, which ran longer, was the "Thin Man" series w/ William Powell and Myrna Loy, which ran from 1934 to 1947."

You make a good point, but the other one with six that springs to mind is Rocky. I'd also call the Star Trek films A films.

Other than that though, it's mostly low budget horror/action films, etc, that get long running series of films with the same lead actor. For example, martial arts films, which sometimes have numerous entries in one series in a single year (back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s that is).

In recent memory though, Rocky Balboa is really the only one I can think of.

You're right on both accounts.

Harry Potter? I know him not.

venomx