Harry Potter- serious business
ITT 2 20+ year olds arguing over harry fucking potter
read a real book and watch a real movie
read a real book and watch a real movie
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
p.s. dumbledore dies
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Oh, please tell us what we should confine our reading/viewing habits to so we can comply with someone else's opinion.
i'm not telling you to 'confine' yourself at all, merely suggesting you break-out of shit made for tweens and hormonal girls
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
but I'm a hormonal girlUzique wrote:
i'm not telling you to 'confine' yourself at all, merely suggesting you break-out of shit made for tweens and hormonal girls
Yeah ok, guy.Uzique wrote:
i'm not telling you to 'confine' yourself at all, merely suggesting you break-out of shit made for tweens and hormonal girls
in the 10-25ish age group, id wager that HP is more well known than shakespeare. but thats still irrelevant, i couldve said the same for LOTR or Narnia.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Roll your eyes at your own self:]its like complaining someone gave away the ending to romeo and juliet
Sure looks like a comparison to me. You're saying that HP is as established as Shakespeare, and it just isn't.
HP was a significant series that was part of the childhood of a huge part of the world - look at its opening weekend stats. this movie and the last few books have smashed almost every relevant record there is.
ok then carry on quote-training one another with harry potter trivia, gal
Last edited by Uzique (2011-07-17 18:10:05)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Oooh, wounding.
and 'i kissed a girl' by katy perry is one of the top selling record-breaking singles of all time.Winston_Churchill wrote:
in the 10-25ish age group, id wager that HP is more well known than shakespeare. but thats still irrelevant, i couldve said the same for LOTR or Narnia.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Roll your eyes at your own self:]its like complaining someone gave away the ending to romeo and juliet
Sure looks like a comparison to me. You're saying that HP is as established as Shakespeare, and it just isn't.
HP was a significant series that was part of the childhood of a huge part of the world - look at its opening weekend stats. this movie and the last few books have smashed almost every relevant record there is.
"relevant" conclusion: most people are fucking morons
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Regrettably, you're probably right. But still, HP7's have only recently been out in the theaters, whereas Shakespeare films have been made, made and remade for years, giving even anyone who hasn't read/seen the plays their own lifetime of a chance to be at least peripherally familiar with it.Winston_Churchill wrote:
in the 10-25ish age group, id wager that HP is more well known than shakespeare. but thats still irrelevant, i couldve said the same for LOTR or Narnia.
HP was a significant series that was part of the childhood of a huge part of the world - look at its opening weekend stats. this movie and the last few books have smashed almost every relevant record there is.
and in what cultural vacuum does your insipid self exist if you think HP is more well known than shakespeare?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
HP is also significantly larger than any katy perry song.
its a character/storyline that grew up with us (me and my age group). i agree entirely that the book is a childrens novel - the last few books, when i was actually able to read more than just the words on the page, i thought were quite poor - the last one especially. i also thought the last movie was awful. im not saying theyre masterpieces, just theyre a significant part of my childhood.
its a character/storyline that grew up with us (me and my age group). i agree entirely that the book is a childrens novel - the last few books, when i was actually able to read more than just the words on the page, i thought were quite poor - the last one especially. i also thought the last movie was awful. im not saying theyre masterpieces, just theyre a significant part of my childhood.
i go outside and talk to people. it doesnt apply to every person in that age group, obviously, but as a general rule id say that more people could give the storyline/characters/titles to more HP books than any of shakespeare's works.
congratulationsUzique wrote:
"relevant" conclusion: most people are fucking morons
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
i never argued against that
Not even close.Winston_Churchill wrote:
HP was a significant series that was part of the childhood of a huge part of the world - look at its opening weekend stats. this movie and the last few books have smashed almost every relevant record there is.
the books have smashed absolutely no "relevant records" in literature as far as literature is actually concerned
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
thanks for the guide i have seen just the first movie so now i know i have more of an idea which to pick in case i have to watch oneunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Harry Potter 7-2
On a scale of past potter movies, combined with 7-1, I give it an 8-8.5ish. Alone, a 9. The only other Potter movie that tops it, in my opinion, is HP3.
Overall:
HP1 - 8
HP2 - 8
HP3 - >9ish (despite it deviating from the book in a manner the previous movies didn't, it was an excellent production. artistic liberty may have set a bad example for the next ones, though)
HP4 - 7 (here's where it really starts to get confusing for people who haven't read the books; artistic liberty takes priority over anything making sense to a non-reader)
HP5 - 8
HP6 - 7
HP7-1 - 7 (essentially a couple hours of ramp-up to the next movie, but it does its job)
HP7-2 - 9
HP7-1 & 7-2 - 8.5 (they work better as a unit, but 7-1 was pretty slow to watch)
===LOL at comparing Harry Potter to Romeo & Juliet.Winston_Churchill wrote:
theres no such thing as a harry potter spoiler. if you actually cared about the ending, you wouldve read the book when it came out.
its like complaining someone gave away the ending to romeo and juliet
Spoiler (highlight to read):
ps they both dieI didn't really notice any of the stuff you've complained about there. I thought it did a remarkable job being faithful to the books. The entire series too, despite deviations here and there, particularly since it changed hands so many times. I actually liked the extended fight at the end of it. Would have been fairly anti-climactic if it merely stopped in the woods.Spidery_Yoda wrote:
Harry Potter 7 Pt. 2
Spoiler (highlight to read):
blah blah blah
Still, what's your rating?
so is part 3 or 9 better???
A real rating would be more like
HP1: 5
HP2: 4
HP3: 3
HP4: 2
HP5: 1 (although I missed the second half because I left to go play on my comp)
HP6: who gives a fuck
HP7: ""
HP8: ""
HP1: 5
HP2: 4
HP3: 3
HP4: 2
HP5: 1 (although I missed the second half because I left to go play on my comp)
HP6: who gives a fuck
HP7: ""
HP8: ""
I'd still watch them in order if you're going to. There's worse things you could do with your time.Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
thanks for the guide i have seen just the first movie so now i know i have more of an idea which to pick in case i have to watch one
so is part 3 or 9 better???
Part three was my favorite, but I was satisfied with part eight, and when part eight is joined to part seven, part seven as well (even if it did have a lot of wandering-around melodrama).
Which could either mean you're a die-hard fan of the books or don't like it altogether.DrunkFace wrote:
A real rating would be more like
===
e:
Rango - 9/10 - better than i thought it would be (was guessing a 7)
Gulliver's Travels (2010) - 7/10 - way better than I thought it'd be (was guessing a 3)
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6568|Graz, Austria
I have read none of the books. Only saw the first movie and parts of another one with spiders in the woods.Spidery_Yoda wrote:
Oh sorry that didn't occur to me. I guess I'm assuming everyone read the book and know what happens anyway. Anyway yeah sorry.
Kiddie book about pre-pubescent fantasies turned into massive franchise to capitalise on adults and their post-pubescent fantasies.
Damn it!
Will the Fahrenheit 451 remake ever be made?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360556/
Fuck, why is Frank Darabont not mentioned as director anymore?
Please, please, please, don't let Michael Bay or Uwe Boll anywhere near it!
Apparently you shouldn't watch this in 3d.jsnipy wrote:
agreeAries_37 wrote:
Harry potter deathly hallows pt2- 8/10
Might have been 9/10 if i had read the book first; but i get there is not way in hell to put all of that even in two movies.
http://gizmodo.com/5821586/ebert-dont-w … lick-in-3d
3d gives me diarrhea anyways.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Kmar wrote:
Apparently you shouldn't watch this in 3d.
http://gizmodo.com/5821586/ebert-dont-w … lick-in-3d
3d gives me diarrhea anyways.
Popcorn and liquorice are also completely unnecessary, but I'll eat them anyway during a flick. When I saw it today, it was in tasteful 3D. Like all tolerable 3D films, it didn't revel in the technology and throw everything it could think of in your face. Rather, it used it to add depth to the visuals. If 3D isn't to your taste, it's not going to hurt to pass it up for a 2D ticket.An original detractor of the technology, Ebert doesn't say that it ruins the film, he just found it completely unnecessary.
Also, sniping at a dead Jackass is completely unnecessary.