Author Topic: I am rather disappointed that Bloodwake is such a Harry Potter fanboy (Read 4587 times)

The Fake Shemp · « **on:** April 21, 2007, 06:25:16 PM »

I expected that kind of devotion to a rehashed, jazzed-up reworking of fantasy concepts from Phoenix Dark, who was probably excited with the fact that he could even read a book that doesn't have a messianic arctype, but not from Bloodwake.

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #1 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:32:01 PM »

Cloud loves those books too.

Bloodwake homeschooled confirmed.

bud · « **Reply #2 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:33:03 PM »

i've never read the books and when one of my friends was going to see the first one in the theaters i was like 'lol?' becuae it was harry potter. i mean he is a nerd rite. but a couple of years later i saw the movies and i really liked them. they get better and better.

they're really fun.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #3 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:33:18 PM »

I love the books, and like the movies. The first two were meh, but still enjoyable at times for fans. The third was brilliant. The last one was mixed - some of it was good (Mad Eye, Voldermort), some was horrible ("a man Harry? But who?)

bud · « **Reply #4 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:34:43 PM »

which one was the one with the bus and jamaican in london? that's probably my favourite of the ones i've seen so far.

demi · « **Reply #5 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:34:49 PM »

They're fun books. Don't take them seriously. The GBC/GBA games are dope as fuck, they are full-fledged RPGs. Some are anyway.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #6 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:35:13 PM »

Quote from: bud on April 21, 2007, 06:34:43 PM

which one was the one with the bus and jamaican in london?

Prisoner of Akzaban (the third). Easily the best

bud · « **Reply #7 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:38:16 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on April 21, 2007, 06:35:13 PM

Quote from: bud on April 21, 2007, 06:34:43 PM
which one was the one with the bus and jamaican in london?

Prisoner of Akzaban (the third). Easily the best

that's the one.

gary oldman

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #8 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:39:45 PM »

The books are entertaining fluff. Nothing special. I appreciate that it has introduced fantasy concepts to a younger generation that was more apt to order 2 Fast 2 Furious novelizations from their Scholastic public school sales flyers, but the belief that it's the best thing written since print was invented is ridiculous and completely insulting.

The movies are awful. I had to restrain from falling asleep during the first two. The third one was decent and the closest to being a good film. The last one was awful, and as I posted elsewhere, is absolutely a slap in the face as an aspiring screenwriter, because Goblet of Fire is the easiest of the books to turn into a good, exciting movie. Cho Seung-hui could've made Goblet of Fire an entertaining movie for crying out loud!

Again, the problem is that twerps like Phoenix Dark will get their panties in a bunch if the filmmakers opt to take liberties with the source material. They already get upset when stuff from the books is cut out or not mentioned altogether (like the house elves organization). But by cramming as much crap into a film and cutting out the rest, they're like awful Cliff Notes versions of the books. They're tedious and uninteresting, and if any of the cast were to be shot to death on screen, I wouldn't shed a tear.

I'd probably applaud.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #9 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:44:03 PM »

Willco playing the lone critic again. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone credible who thinks all the movies "suck".

brawndolicious · « **Reply #10 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:45:30 PM »

You mean movie reviews? I don't trust a jack-off that does that for a living.

Movies do suck.

Books are absolutely aweful.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #11 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:46:02 PM »

You insulted Unforgiven and FDR this month, sir. You are in no way, shape or form, certified to call me a lone critic.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #12 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:46:38 PM »

Actually we're brothers in that sense. I like a man willing to go against the grain

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #13 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:47:28 PM »

The movies were pretty bad.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #14 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:48:39 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on April 21, 2007, 06:46:38 PM

Actually we're brothers in that sense. I like a man willing to go against the grain

I'm not really going against the grain. Outside of the Harry Potter fanbase, which is large, the films are hardly adored. That's like saying if you removed Christianity, the rest of the world doesn't care about Christ, though.

bluemax · « **Reply #15 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:49:09 PM »

I feel like I'm one of the few people in the world who doesn't like Harry Potter. I read the first 3 or 4 books (not when they were new) in like a week one summer and they were the most formulaic books I'd read in a long time. How is Harry Potter so big when other formulaic British Children's literature like Redwall isn't?

Vizzys · « **Reply #16 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:51:36 PM »

read artemis fowl, it has fairys. its pretty gay/awesomely gay. better then harry potter. the author calls it "die hard with fairys", and it fits well.

bud · « **Reply #17 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:53:22 PM »

fdr?

what movie is that

brawndolicious · « **Reply #18 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:54:04 PM »

Quote from: bud on April 21, 2007, 06:53:22 PM

fdr?
what movie is that

president.

bud · « **Reply #19 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:55:13 PM »

bluemax · « **Reply #20 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:55:52 PM »

franklin delano roosevelt...

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #21 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:56:34 PM »

Quote from: bluemax

I feel like I'm one of the few people in the world who doesn't like Harry Potter. I read the first 3 or 4 books (not when they were new) in like a week one summer and they were the most formulaic books I'd read in a long time. How is Harry Potter so big when other formulaic British Children's literature like Redwall isn't?

Because Rowling has reworked some good fantasy concepts, with a ~~unique~~ interesting twist on good versus evil, and made it a tale of growing up in adolescence (I'm assuming having not read Redwall, that it is different from that). It strikes all the right chords with younger readers and it's actually well written for this type of fare (the same cannot be said for something like Eragorn). If you've read George R. Martin, Tolkien, C.S. Lewis or what have you, these are concepts you've read before, but Harry Potter is not intimidating to your average reader. Trying to get an elementary student to read C.S. Lewis is like pulling teeth, but Harry Potter is a concept they can get behind. It's far less alien and as a kid with magical powers following a generic hero arctype, it's much more exciting.

My brother is diagnosed with some kind of learning disability, and as so, he finds reading a frustrating experience that he usually avoids at all costs. But he sat down and read Harry Potter. I can't hate on that.

The movies are just awful, though. They're pure fan service, so if you're not a devout fan, they kind of blow.

bud · « **Reply #22 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:56:45 PM »

ohhhhh

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #23 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:56:50 PM »

bud

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #24 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:56:56 PM »

i liked the third movie. 1, 2 and 4 are indeed awful.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #25 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:57:53 PM »

Yeah, Prisoner of Azkaban was the only one I enjoyed watching whatsoever. I think they criminally underused Gary Oldman, though.

Vizzys · « **Reply #26 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:59:05 PM »

have yur kids read artemis fowl over harry potter for good measure.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #27 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:00:40 PM »

I don't think having kids read Harry Potter is a bad thing, unless they start becoming pompous, delusional literature critics that claim that Harry Potter reinvented the fantasy genre and put the series on a pedestal. It's disgusting.

I find it hysterical that Christian fundies hate the books so much, when they are more like the Harry Potter fanbase than any other base in the world.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #28 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:07:42 PM »

Kids would like Artemis Fowl more if only because it makes them realize how shitty harry potter is and then they can become true ~~film~~ book snobs.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #29 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:11:48 PM »

i think roald dahl, susan cooper, and philip pullman do a better job crossing the kid-adult fantasy lit boundary than rowling, but the 5th and 6th harry potter books were dumb fun. the previous four were awful, though.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #30 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:15:17 PM »

They might be better authors, but the proof is in the readers - Rowling has done a better job. I agree with you, because Dahl is one of my favorite authors (Willy Wonka & The Glass Elevator is one of the darkest, most awesome children's stories ever!) and I was a fan of Cooper's The Grey King back in the day. I don't really know who Pullman is, though. $:-\$

bud · « **Reply #31 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:16:33 PM »

Quote from: Willco on April 21, 2007, 07:15:17 PM

They might be better authors, but the proof is in the readers - Rowling has done a better job. I agree with you, because Dahl is one of my favorite authors (Willy Wonka & The Glass Elevator is one of the darkest, most awesome children's stories ever!) and I was a fan of Cooper's The Grey King back in the day. I don't really know who Pullman is, though. $:-\$

the greatest president the us has ever known

Cheebs · « **Reply #32 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:16:45 PM »

I thought the books would remain popular but by the half-way point the series's rabid insanity of tickle me elmo proportions would fade, very surprised it lasted all the way through book 7 without taking a hit.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #33 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:17:21 PM »

Philip Pullman did the His Dark Materials trilogy. It's a fun read, although I felt it bogged down a little at the end. Then again, I hated Cooper's 1st book -- Over Sea, Under Stone -- as well.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #34 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:19:17 PM »

I think it's because it's obvious Rowling had some kind of outline for this series and is staying true to the course, all while tweaking things here and there and making the tone more sinister as the readers age. If she was just making it up as she went along, totally and completely, I think she would've hit a wall and the series would blow.

Think Frank Herbert and Dune.

Mr. Gundam · « **Reply #35 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:21:09 PM »

Eh, they're nothing spectacular, but I like the books, I like the movies, they're just fun.

And yes, Azkaban is the best film, mainly due to Cuaron's direction and decision to not adhere to the book. I'm sure glad the producers took note of his magical A Little Princess and gave him the reigns.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #36 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:23:43 PM »

That's exactly my point. The shining point of the series, which is completely unspectacular, has been Prisoner of Azkaban. It is also the only one that attempts to take some liberties with the source material to create a somewhat coherent film (it does not succeed completely, I think it's rushed near the end and loses steam without a legitimate villain), but instead of learning from that, Warner Bros. replaced him with the hack that made Donnie Brasco and returned to its Cliff Notes formula. That blows.

Cheebs · « **Reply #37 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:24:03 PM »

I will very dissapointed if PoA is the only exceptional movie out of the 7 when things are said and done. The other 3 are by the book rehashes that don't feel as much like real films.

This series should have waited 10 years or at the very least 5 years after the series finished to do films, doing them as the books release leaves very little room to interpretation and fresh ideas that are almost always needed in book to film translations.

Ichirou · « **Reply #38 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:40:53 PM »

The proof of Harry Potter's success is this: Willco, Drinky Crow - both grown men - readily admit to having read the books, ostensibly children's literature. The fact that the Harry Potter books crossed this barrier, going from children's books to a phenomenon experienced by both kids and adults, is why Rowling is so successful (and filthy rich).

I haven't read any of the books, or seen any movies past the first three. :shrug

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #39 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:44:35 PM »

I don't know why Drinky read them, but I will admit why I did. I had no intention of ever reading Harry Potter, especially since I saw the first two films before I read the books (I was dragged by my younger siblings, both dabble in the occult of all things Potter).

But then a hot chick at my college who was into film was totally a Potter geek. And I totally wanted to go out with her. I mean, she was really into Potter. She'd launch into these huge diatribes about the film adaptations, she had fan art and all this stuff. So I sucked it up and read all of them. And we started to develop something and it fizzled out.

Yes, I read Potter books for a chick.

Ichirou · « **Reply #40 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:46:52 PM »

The point remains that she was an adult who was a Harry Potter fan. While I'm not interested in reading the books (or watching the movies, for that matter), I think it's great that this series has gotten kids into reading. Hopefully once they're done with Harry Potter, they'll keep at it and it'll create a lifelong love for books. The fact that adults like it too means that, at the very least, Rowling's work is good entertainment.

TVC15 · « **Reply #41 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:49:12 PM »

You know why Harry Potter rocks?

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #42 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:50:06 PM »

Quote from: Willco on April 21, 2007, 07:44:35 PM

Yes, I read Potter books for a chick.

Wow, I'm not even that desperate.

Maybe I should be.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #43 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:51:12 PM »

Yeah, they're entertaining, light reads. I'd recommend them for long flights, because they don't require that you pay extra attention to every detail, which is hard to do when you're in a tight, pressurized box with wings thousands of feet in the air.

And yes, while she was an adult, she started while she was a teenager - not when she was legal (oh yeah!). My issue is while kids do enjoy them, I don't see a lot branching out of the Potter universe. They pretty much become the literary equivalent of Star Wars geeks and I'm sure Rowling will be endlessly harassed for sequels, spinoffs and short stories in the same universe after she kills off Harry Potter in the 7th book later this year!

Quote from: CajoleJuice on April 21, 2007, 07:50:06 PM

Wow, I'm not even that desperate.

It wasn't desperation; she was hot and she had a great knack for cinema. She had awesome taste in film, I enjoyed talking about movies with her and she was nice to look at. You're telling me you wouldn't spend roughly a few days to breeze through some fantasy novels if you had the chance to elevate things with a girl like that? You lie!

Ichirou · « **Reply #44 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:53:00 PM »

The Harry Potter Extended Universe?!

bluemax · « **Reply #45 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:53:05 PM »

I applaud Rowling for getting kids to read, in this day and age that is a feat.

I do not enjoy all the people my age who think her books are some kind of good literature.

Vizzys · « **Reply #46 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:53:35 PM »

Artemis fowl > Harry Potter

Artemis fowl movie 2008 you manchildren

TVC15 · « **Reply #47 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:53:39 PM »

She's not going to kill off Harry.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #48 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:54:06 PM »

i read part of the first and part of the second. then i saw the fourth movie and couldn't make head or fucking tails of it, so i read the book to figure out what the fuck was going on. my wife left the fifth and sixth books on our headboard bookstand thing, so i read 'em before bed. i later went back and skimmed 1-3, but found them largely unreadable crap.

seriously, if the fourth movie hadn't been so fucking hacked up and awful, my knowledge of harry potter the book series would be confined to half the first book and two chapters of the second.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #49 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:54:09 PM »

Quote from: Ichirou on April 21, 2007, 07:53:00 PM

The Harry Potter Extended Universe?!

If you don't think that's coming, I have a house in Alaska to sell you. It's a nice, sunny place that is great for ~~losing your mind and wanting to kill your family~~ vacationing!

Vizzys · « **Reply #50 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:55:19 PM »

He'll feel right at home with all the asians living here.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #51 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:55:24 PM »

Quote from: TVC 15 on April 21, 2007, 07:53:39 PM

She's not going to kill off Harry.

Harry Potter is going to die. Scholastic will start selling Hogwarts tissue packs by the end of the first week and make millions of dollars. It's all a huge marketing scam.

demi · « **Reply #52 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:56:29 PM »

Ramona Quimby is a vixen.

TVC15 · « **Reply #53 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:57:12 PM »

Also, at least the Potter movies are competently done. which is more than I can say about the Spider-Man movies. How the fuck can someone make a boring Spider-Man movie? How? How did Raimi manage to do it twice?

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #54 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:57:17 PM »

Quote from: demi on April 21, 2007, 07:56:29 PM

Ramona Quimby is a vixen.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #55 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:58:02 PM »

Quote from: TVC 15 on April 21, 2007, 07:57:12 PM

Also, at least the Potter movies are competently done.

Not really. One is - Prisoner of Azkaban. The rest look like they were directed by a robot.

demi · « **Reply #56 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:58:41 PM »

I'd fuck her so hard.

bud · « **Reply #57 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:59:00 PM »

Quote from: TVC 15 on April 21, 2007, 07:57:12 PM

Also, at least the Potter movies are competently done. which is more than I can say about the Spider-Man movies. How the fuck can someone make a boring Spider-Man movie? How? How did Raimi manage to do it twice?

spider-man 2's pacing could've been better but it was not by any means boring.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #58 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:59:05 PM »

Quote from: demi on April 21, 2007, 07:58:41 PM

I'd fuck her so hard.

I think this thread is headed down a terrible, dark place where no man's soul may return.

Quote from: bud on April 21, 2007, 07:59:00 PM

spider-man 2's pacing could've been better but it was not by any means boring.

Don't indulge him!

demi · « **Reply #59 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:59:45 PM »

Roxy Quimby.

News:

Author Topic: I am rather disappointed that Bloodwake is such a Harry Potter fanboy (Read 4587 times)