Harry Fucking Potter

[checkoutgirl]

According to the Harry Potter wiki, the first book is set in 1991-2, so mobiles weren't really part of the wider culture then. The last is set in 1998, so they'd just be really starting to become a must own by then.

Never mentioned the books because I've never read them and have no intention of reading them as I'm not 12 years old or Stephen Fry or remotely interested in magic children. The magical microvaves interfering with phone signals, hmmm, that's convenient. I dunno, when I watch a Harry Potter film I rarely feel the peril because I'm convinced that Hermione will always have the right bit of information at the right time and Harry is essentially invincible because most people treat him as a saviour/messiah character. Plus all the plot seems arbitrary to me, go to the magic tree, talk to the elvin troll, get the haunted key, give it to the mertle ghost, wave your magic wand three times and say "there's no place like home" then click your heels and drink the potion of mordak. Run past the void of solitude but make sure to avoid the dragon of chance and pull the beard of the wise man but not on a Tuesday because it will curse you if your magic wand is not straight and true, watch out for the exploding bubblegum fairy at the end of the enchanted rainbow and blah fucking blah blah blah. It's essentially inconsequential, unrelatable bollocks. I've never done any of these things and I'm probably too old to suspend my disbelief. Good luck to anyone who can though.

I would happily watch Alan Rickman pick his nose for 2 hours so at least there's something for me in the films. I love Alan Rickman and his appearance in any old bollocks will always help.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Never mentioned the books because I've never read them and have no intention of reading them as I'm not 12 years old or Stephen Fry or remotely interested in magic children.

With no particular malice intended, why the fuck do you care then?

[checkoutgirl]

With no particular malice intended, why the fuck do you care then?

Because sometimes I have to watch the films. And I don't like them.

Except Prisoner,which was only alright.

And there was a thread started about it, and I saw it as a chance to let off steam, like we all do sometimes.

You see?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I'm not 12 years old or Stephen Fry or remotely interested in magic children.

[checkoutgirl]

I was making a point about the films.

And the guy says "Well the thing about the books is..."

And I said "I never mentioned the books"

By the way, I don't give a fuck. It's just kids stuff that I feel obliged to sit through occasionally.

[Mister Six]

The whole thing about it encouraging literacy. They can fuck off with that. How is it encouraging literacy if every book becomes a film?

Kids read books after watching the films, or - in the case of younger ones - are more open to having parents read with them.

And it's proveable, on account of the books having sold millions upon millions of copies and doing gangbusters in public libraries and school libraries.

Reading shitty books is no better than reading tabloids or Dan Brown novels, so there's no educational angle there.

They're considerably better written than Dan Brown's shite. They're actually genuinely well written on their own merits, in fact.

[Thomas]

As I grew up in those nineties, attending the most primary of schools, I was taught by my English teachers to avoid using the word 'said' and to come up with other, more interesting, verbs. But J.K. Rowling just about always used 'said,' and she got away with it.

[CaledonianGonzo]

If Rowling had actually done that she'd be a stronger writer.  As it is, the books are filled with people 'shrieking wildly' and 'drawling coldly' at each other.

[Mister Six]

As I grew up in those nineties, attending the most primary of schools, I was taught by my English teachers to avoid using the word 'said' and to come up with other, more interesting, verbs. But J.K. Rowling just about always used 'said,' and she got away with it.

Elmore Leonard always uses said, and you don't fuck with Elmore Leonard.[nb]There's nothing inherently wrong with modifying verbs, but I agree with Leonard that unless you're very clever with language, using anything else will just distract from the story you're telling. The meaning and tone of the words should be clear from the context anyway.[/nb]

[holyzombiejesus]

I actually had to go and see the first 3 Harry Potter films at the cinema, each time with a  different female. I toyed with the idea of writing some kind of shitty Nick Hornby/ Potter cash-in, wherein I'd write about how my life had been punctuated by these appalling films. The first book was to be called Memoirs of a Muggle and the sequel would be Anyone for Quidditch?

[MojoJojo]

Elmore Leonard always uses said, and you don't fuck with Elmore Leonard.[nb]There's nothing inherently wrong with using a synonym for said, but I agree with Leonard that unless you're very clever with language, using anything else will just distract from the story you're telling. The meaning and tone of the words should be clear from the context anyway.[/nb]

I use "ejaculated" instead of said.

[Blumf]

My main problem with the Harry Potter films is that cinema seats are very hard to get a comfortable sleep on. You end up walking up with a crick in your neck and your wife complaining about you snoring too much.

[SteveDave]

My main problem with the Harry Potter films is that they never played the long game (bar with Alan Rickman) so you knew that every new teacher every term would say "Herry Por-tah...I knew your dad" etc & would turn out to be a wrong 'un.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Go on then.  Which villainous teachers?

Edit:  I suppose you could make the case for Mad-Eye Moody...

[SteveDave]

That one who turned out to be Dr Who dressed up as the The Guard.

Lord Longford who was something to do with something going wrong. Possibly involved cowardice.

Jonny from Naked as a werewolf who wasn't bad in the end.

There was another one.

Kenneth Branagh. He wasn't bad but he was a coward.

Vera Drake! Her. She was bad. The cutting lines.

I can't remember the 2nd one but it probably happened somehow.

[Kane Jones]

I use "ejaculated" instead of said.

That's funny; I use ejaculate instead of hair gel.

[The Duck Man]

I actually had to go and see the first 3 Harry Potter films at the cinema, each time with a  different female. I toyed with the idea of writing some kind of shitty Nick Hornby/ Potter cash-in, wherein I'd write about how my life had been punctuated by these appalling films. The first book was to be called Memoirs of a Muggle and the sequel would be Anyone for Quidditch?

Sounds like more of a Dominic Holland title.

[Cerys]

Well, I've been lucky enough to avoid watching a whole one yet - there isn't enough time on weekdays.  That said, we watched the start of The Philosopher's Stone on Sunday and I didn't want to throw anything at the telly.

[Kane Jones]

we watched the start of The Philosopher's Stone on Sunday and I didn't want to throw anything at the telly.

Not even your knickers when you saw Rickman?

[Cerys]

Didn't get as far as him.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Didn't get as far as 20 minutes?

My memory of these films:

1. Philosopher's Stone - drab, underwhelming, bad acting, Chris Columbus cloying sweet Hollywood direction
2. Chamber Of Secrets - similar, but marginally better acting and more assured
3. Prisoner Of Askaban - darker and better looking apart from one fuckawful cgi wolfbloke
4. Goblet Of Fire - reasonably fun derivative mid-saga 'championship' story
5. Order Of Pheonix - probably the closest any film has been to the books, the staunton woman being a proper bitch, Starts to get good near the end, nice stand off at the end and the best bit of the series with the "you'll never know love, never know friendship and i...feel sorry for you" moment
6. Half-Blood Prince - DARK as owt, fun London bits, overly sentimental Dumbledeath
7. Deathly Hallows 1 - Good character bits and enjoyable different from the rest. Blonde irish child annoying as fuck, cannot act, get her off screen!
8. Deathly Hallows 2 - Good fun and enjoyable showdowns. Disliked Bonham Carter

Looking back they start so Americanised yet by the end they're almost bombastically British

[Kane Jones]

Didn't get as far as 20 minutes?

I assumed she meant the distance between the sofa and the telly.

[Gulftastic]

8. Deathly Hallows 2 - Good fun and enjoyable showdowns. Disliked Bonham Carter

Her best work in the films is not playing Bellatrix, but playing Hermione disguised as Bellatrix. She is utterly convincing as a teen girl in an older woman's body (oo-er).

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I assumed she meant the distance between the sofa and the telly.

Well she is an disabled.

[Cerys]

Damn right.

No, we didn't get far into the film - but I can't remember why.  So maybe we did and I've had my memory wiped for my own protection.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Ah yes, just remembered back to the start of the series where the book 'Philosopher's Stone' was changed to 'Sorcerer's Stone' for American audiences because y'know- philosophy is saaaad and sorcery is coool.

[Unoriginal]

I'm amazed that anyone over the age of thirteen can be anything but indifferent about Harry Potter. I've read all the books and indifference is all I can offer. They're fun reads, decently written for what they are, and you can get through them very quickly. However, when you've finished them, there's not much to ponder really.

Any adults reading them should be avoided though. If your reading habits having evolved past Harry Potter when you're in your twenties at least, something went wrong during your teenage years.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Maybe people reading them are just looking for something light as a palate cleanser after chewing their way through pages and pages of William Blake banging on about Golgonooza.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I'm amazed that anyone over the age of thirteen can be anything but indifferent about Harry Potter. I've read all the books and indifference is all I can offer. They're fun reads, decently written for what they are

For some reason or another when I grew up I was always the same age as him when the books came out. I think he's about 18 by the end so maybe that's a more sensible cut-off point. I did start to think the books were a bit babyish from 16 onwards but all I remember doing from 16-18 was playing on Xbox Live and drinking Smirnoff Ice, so what did I know?

If they're fun reads, decently written for what they are (which they are, apart from actions scenes which J K Rowling really can't describe or visually direct very well), I guess that justifies them in their own right.
These days if people are reading any novels at all that's some something.

[Thomas]

I'm currently in a lecture about existential literature of the twentieth century. I've been sat here for two and a half hours. I'd much rather be reading about Quidditch and fictional owls right now.