Well, I’m hoping it’s a Depeche Mode reference, because I’d sure hate to flub my first audition as Savior.
I feel like I’m committing blasphemy (against Star Wars) by saying this, but… right on.
I have to say I like the Harry Potter books despite the plots being rather a mess. (And yes I like starwars and LOTR too, especially LOTR). It worries me a bit, but there you go.
Just my 2p.
Why do people bother with Harry Potter when they can have Terry Pratchett instead?
So I guess I’m the only one who thinks the Harry Potter books are both unoriginal and mediocre writing?
I just about tossed “The Chamber of Secrets” across the room when it kept yanking away my suspension of disbelief. And don’t even get me started about the stupidity of Quidditch (sp?).
Really I find them predictable, and the characters are inconsistent.
Oh, and rjung, some people don’t like Terry Pratchett, and it’s not really quite the same genre.
Re: The Worst Witch, I hate that series! [sub]until the yummmmmmmmmmmm…err…redheaded lead is of legal age that is ;)[/sub]
Well, that’s just not fair…don’t go pointing out people’s obviously horrendous lack of taste just to support your premise man! Have you no sense of shame?
Kids are obsessive. Hype about some ridiculous kiddie thing happens every single year, and the past things get forgotten.
Cabbage Patch Kids, Transformers, Ninja Turtles, Tickle Me Elmo, Teletubbies, Pokemon, now it’s Harry Potter’s turn. The media loves a phenomenon, and so they latch on and feed the fire.
I’ve never heard anyone claim Harry Potter is original, though. Certainly not JK Rowling, I’m sure she’s the first to acknowledge her influences, or the similarity to previously written works.
FOUR WORDS…LORD OF THE RINGS
Ooops, Sorry SPOOFE - I missed this - but at least we agree
“SPOOFE?,” inquireth Ogre mildly.
I really dont think that the criticism for J.K. Rowling that I am hearing is justifiable. Such an intelligent writer who has created a series so excruciatingly comptemteously compulsory to read that there are over 30 million fans worldwide ranging from senior adults to 10 year old children who have filled themselves with the magic of Harry Potter and who have the patience and trust me the wait is excruciatingly painful for the next book. These books are one of the most famous in the history of books defeated just by Shakespeare and the Holy Bible.
But i do believe that displaying these books on T.V. is a mockery of the brilliant effort made by Rowling to encourage children to change their opinions about books and give them something else to do instead of watching T.V. all day or having contact with negative environments such as drugs and alcohol. The books are safe and can be read by anyone who can read.
But i do hate the T.V. part!!!
Y’know, I watch TV constantly. I turn it one the minute I come home and don’t turn it off until I go to bed. And I mostly watch sci-fi/fantasy stuff: Star Trek, Buffy, and so forth. And I’ve seen one (1) commercial for Harry Potter. How is this possible? Guess my subconscious commercial filter is running really well.
Oddly, I spend even more time reading than I do watching TV, and I’ve never read any Harry Potter books, either.
Okay, I can get that the books are good and are getting kids to read actual books, and that the movie looks like it’s really well made. There is only one thing that I hate:
Why does JKR have to give everything silly names? I mean the books are full of stuff like Hogwarts, bush-wiggle, fuzzygucks and retarded shit like that.
Is this what kids go for these days, 'cause I sure didn’t.
You know, I’m of two minds about this whole thing.
On the one hand, I do like the books. They’re no masterpieces, but I enjoyed them. They were a good mindless read. And it looks like the movie will be pretty good, too.
On the other hand, the frenzy surrounding the thing is out of control. Nothing, of course, could possibly live up to the hype. I submit that the underlying reason for it is simply that there’s been very little decent literature for young adults lately. At least as far as I’ve seen.
And the hype surrounding the movie interests me too. A year or two back, I saw an interview with the author. In a nutshell, she said she had turned down all kinds of offers to license the characters for toys, etc, because she felt it would cheapen the books. Favorite quote from that interview:
“Do you realize how much money you’re turning down?”
“Do you realize how much money I already have?”
You have to respect someone with that kind of viewpoint.
Anyway, then the movie shows up, and Harry’s whoring himself out like he’s in Thailand. I strongly suspect that the movie people would only do a movie if they were allowed to merchandise the living daylights out of it, and Rowling had to agree to get the movie made. Pure speculation on my part, but it seems likely to me.
They shouldnt show the movie!!!Keep it to the books only!
2 words: Roald Dahl. Now they were good children’s books. Except for the nightmares, of course.
And yeah, the books were enjoyable, but I don’t think they were anything special, and as for movies, stuffed toys etc - i say bah! humbug!
Pointless rambling:
I don’t live under a rock, but I don’t have TV and haven’t had it for a year. I honest to God did not even know there was a Harry Potter movie coming out until Saturday when I saw the trailer before Monsters, Inc.
Sometimes I feel like getting rid of the media hype and crap has calmed my brain down a lot. I don’t get all pissed off at seeing things for the thousanth time because I don’t see 'em.
I don’t know…the movie looks good to me, though. I’ll go see it.
Zette
I’m sorry, but this is just too good to resist
brought to you by “Spanky the Dolphin” 
Well I’ve been reading PTerry for the last 13 years. I’ve bought the last… ooh… 15 or so books the instant they’ve come out in hardback. I’ve been to the discworld convention. I’ve chatted with Josh Kirby (may he rest in peace). I’ve met the real Hodgesaaaargh and know the story of Colette and the earrings. It’s fair to say that I’m a fan.
And I’ve read the Harry Potter books too. Waddyaknow? It turns out that you can do… both!
Coo.
pan
Because the books are for children and in general children like those kind of “retarded shit” names.
And if you don’t believe me, go tell a story to some nine year olds and try it for yourself.
pan