PDA

View Full Version : Potter III


MDA
08-06-2004, 15:57:31
Going to see this one tonight. Will it be better or worse than Harry Bottom and the Prison of Asskebab?


... and will there be a sequel? :cute:

Funkodrom
08-06-2004, 16:25:30
Going on Friday. Apparently it's the best of the three.

RedFred
09-06-2004, 00:34:19
I liked it. It was just like Shrek 2 in that most of the audience I when I saw it were adults.

HP wasn't meant to be funny for the most part, but a lot of the Shrek jokes zoomed over the heads of the kidlets.

BigGameHunter
09-06-2004, 01:06:36
I tried to take my 3 yo to Shrek II the other day. Complete disaster. I'd go into the details, but they're too gruesome. Let's just say it involved handing out popcorn to all the surrounding people and kicking a lot of chairs in front of us (during the movie), accompanied by wailing, screaming, whining and demands for me to "TURN THE LIGHTS BACK ON!!!!".
I skulked out of there, thoroughly humiliated.

Funkodrom
09-06-2004, 08:48:21
I'm going to a relatively late friday night showing so hopefully the audience will be adults.

fp@korea
09-06-2004, 08:59:37
I'm going to go to a showing in South Korea, so although most of the audience will be adults they will all have a mental age of approximately 9.*


*- this isn't an asians-are-dumb racist remark, but merely an observation that they're all utterly obsessed with cute cartoon characters. I've seen grown men wearing pink Hello Kitty sweaters here.

MDA
09-06-2004, 11:17:56
Fun movie. Dumbledore really does look like a hippy now, though.

My wife was upset that they didn't spend a few more minutes explaining about Harry's father's animagus friends.

King_Ghidra
09-06-2004, 12:20:14
haven't seen it yet, i enjoyed the book a lot but found the denoument tremendously unsatisfying

i hope the film does a better job

BigGameHunter
09-06-2004, 16:16:48
Denoument? What a lady-boy! I hope you don't use that kind of language in everyday conversation!?!

This all reminds me of something I'm very recently angry at the UK for: I rented what I hoped would be a wonderful Narnia DVD, made by the BBC--it was absolute crapola!!! It reminded me of HR Puffinstuff, but not in a good way. The effects were horrendous and the witch was so camp as to be unwatchable. I don't know when they made it...looked very "80's".
I hope Harry can redeem your lovely country.


*secret confession: I haven't even read Harry Potter*

MDA
11-06-2004, 03:22:30
My wife said one of the papers here reviewed the third movie without reading the books or watching the first two movies...

they didn't like it!!! Big surprise. They were probably lost the entire time.

Darkstar
11-06-2004, 03:30:47
But BGH has seen the first two movies, IIRC. So he shouldn't be "lost".

Immortal Wombat
11-06-2004, 18:26:39
Originally posted by BigGameHunter

This all reminds me of something I'm very recently angry at the UK for: I rented what I hoped would be a wonderful Narnia DVD, made by the BBC--it was absolute crapola!!! It reminded me of HR Puffinstuff, but not in a good way. The effects were horrendous and the witch was so camp as to be unwatchable. I don't know when they made it...looked very "80's".

It was late 80s I think. My family used to watch it over Sunday tea. I quite enjoyed it at the time, of course, I was only about 6.

Immortal Wombat
11-06-2004, 18:31:06
Oh yeah, and I saw Harry Potter last night. I thought it was a pretty good part 3 in general. It seemed to keep with the spirit of the book and the films.
Dumbledore didn't change much from Richard Harris', but the changes made him more like the Dumbledore I had imagined from the books. I agree with MDAs wife though at the very scarce time alloted to explaining anything about the elder generation and their time at school, authoring the marauders map, being animagi etc.

MOBIUS
11-06-2004, 19:10:17
Three was OK - far better than two! Probably better than one as well, but they are beginning to wear off me now...

BigGameHunter
11-06-2004, 19:50:41
I saw the first movie...or sort of half-watched it...pretty good.
Have no clue what's going on in the story.

I have a mass-popularity aversion thing, personally. Anything that reaches a certain saturation point (Titanic, L.A. Lakers, Anime, etc.) has a allergic affect on me for some reason.

MOBIUS
11-06-2004, 23:10:53
Is that why you're a Detroit Lions fan then?:p

BigGameHunter
12-06-2004, 00:56:09
Careful there, pal! Don't you back the only team WORSE than the Lions????!!!??? :lol:



They might be halfway decent this year! And the Bungles (provided they get Kitna back in there) might be too!

jsorense
12-06-2004, 02:04:29
Well, look at me, I'm a Lions, Tigers and Cubs fan.
Yeah, laugh now, but wait unile next year.:bounce: Oops, Sports Forum, I know. :o

Darkstar
13-06-2004, 06:53:42
Well, saw #3 today. I thought it was a good adaption of the book. I'd hoped they had done a bit better with a few things (the patronage at the end, etc), but it was ok.

They did mention the difference between werewolves and animagi. But it will probably take a few replays on the DVD player for people to catch all of it. It's rather shoe-horned.

No real explanation of the map. But hey, thats what them books are for. ;)

Funkodrom
14-06-2004, 09:41:28
Good film, easily the best of the three.

Greg W
15-06-2004, 10:09:20
I didn't like it as much (haven't read ANY of the books, seen all three films). I thought some of the stuff was just rather oddly handled, probably as a fault of the book more than the film, or tha adaptation of the one to the other. There just seemed to be a few areas where incredible leaps of logic were made with absolutely no explanation whatsoever (won't go into details for fear of spoilers).

Venom
15-06-2004, 12:20:12
I actually just started reading the first book and I've only seen the first movie. As usual I'm years behind the rest of the world. I should move to Albania or something.

I tell you what, that little Watson chick keeps growing up and I'll be leering at, I mean, watching all the future Potter versions.

BigGameHunter
15-06-2004, 18:18:04
Like you aren't leering at her already.
Go ahead, admit it...you're safe here.
Nothing wrong with admiring...err...potential, right? It's like you're a vintner or something, celebrating the sweet wine that will someday come from the young grape.

Venom
15-06-2004, 18:19:44
Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. Except with my hand in my pants. Or do vinters do that as well?

BigGameHunter
15-06-2004, 18:21:58
No, you're thinking of bannana plantation owners who also belong to NAMBLA.

Venom
15-06-2004, 18:22:57
I'll be one of them then.

BigGameHunter
15-06-2004, 18:44:40
The dues for NAMBLA are fairly steep. Just your eternal soul, that's all.
I love hearing those guys try to rationalize their "special friendships".

Venom
15-06-2004, 22:50:57
With deductive reasoning like that, they could give Johnny Cochran a run for his money.

zmama
16-06-2004, 10:54:36
Pervert scum

MDA
16-06-2004, 12:23:38
Johnny Cochran?

Venom
16-06-2004, 12:49:45
Ok, I probably spelled his name wrong, but he's an ass. He doesn't deserve a correctly spelled name.

zmama: I am what I am, and that's all that I am.

zmama
16-06-2004, 14:19:17
Hey sailor!

Venom
16-06-2004, 14:24:05
Toot toot

The Mad Monk
17-06-2004, 08:02:45
Originally posted by BigGameHunter
Denoument? What a lady-boy! I hope you don't use that kind of language in everyday conversation!?!

This all reminds me of something I'm very recently angry at the UK for: I rented what I hoped would be a wonderful Narnia DVD, made by the BBC--it was absolute crapola!!! It reminded me of HR Puffinstuff, but not in a good way. The effects were horrendous and the witch was so camp as to be unwatchable. I don't know when they made it...looked very "80's".
I hope Harry can redeem your lovely country.


*secret confession: I haven't even read Harry Potter*

American 80s, or Brit 80s?

BigGameHunter
17-06-2004, 17:03:19
Uh...I guess Brit 80's. Totally crap special effects.

Venom
17-06-2004, 18:31:58
Finished Potter 1. Hermione isn't so hot in the book.

BigGameHunter
18-06-2004, 00:53:39
Magic boogers?


Isn't there a kick ass animated Narnia film? Or did I just imagine it as I read the series long ago?

Damn...I think I've done too much acid.

Darkstar
18-06-2004, 02:45:59
Maybe it was so kick ass because you were a kid then?

The Mad Monk
18-06-2004, 08:25:36
Originally posted by BigGameHunter
Uh...I guess Brit 80's. Totally crap special effects.

It's an Important distinction -- American 60s = Brit 80s.

Funkodrom
18-06-2004, 14:18:42
It was made in the 80s... well it came out when I was a little kid.

zmama
18-06-2004, 14:36:46
I liked it, think its charming, but I care more for the story than the FX.

Funkodrom
18-06-2004, 14:42:35
Incidently we're still 20 years behind US TV in effects - UK TV is much poorer.

The Mad Monk
18-06-2004, 15:07:32
I remember seeing Doctor Who with Tom Baker for the first time around 1978, on PBS, and thinking that it was a great show, even if it was a fifteen year old rerun.

Funkodrom
18-06-2004, 15:10:23
:lol:

Dr Who is notorious for it's shit special effects. Tom Baker period was worse than Star Trek TOS. :)

The Mad Monk
18-06-2004, 15:38:29
I have to say, though, that bad as it was, it was my favorite SF show for a long, long time. :)

King_Ghidra
18-06-2004, 15:48:59
used to scare the shit out of me when i was a kid

MOBIUS
18-06-2004, 23:31:05
Androids of Tara!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!

*MOBIUS runs screaming in childlike fear behind the nearest sofa*

Funkodrom
19-06-2004, 10:43:19
Oh yeah, it was a great show. Just had terrible effects. That didn't matter at all to how scary it was though.

The Mad Monk
19-06-2004, 13:56:18
For a few years, a minor PBS station was running Doctor Who from earliest (surviving) to what at that time (around 1990) was the most recent available (that other Baker). They went on in two hour segments, five nights a week, and I got the whole damn thing on VHS.

They're fading now, as VHS does. :cry:

BigGameHunter
19-06-2004, 17:41:52
I don't think I've ever seen a Dr. Who.

The Mad Monk
19-06-2004, 18:41:07
And you call yourself a geek.

BigGameHunter
20-06-2004, 16:49:01
I'm what you'd call a breek. That is, a brute that never quite bloomed, or a sub-geek with a bit of brute in him.

Poor me--jack of all, master of none.

Darkstar
21-06-2004, 02:44:36
Your a meek? A military geek?

BigGameHunter
21-06-2004, 17:05:14
I'm not even fully committed to that.
I guess I'm a leek: lazy geek.

zmama
21-06-2004, 17:43:58
Makes a fine soup, those leeks

Angelhorns
21-06-2004, 21:05:26
summary?

MOBIUS
21-06-2004, 21:08:32
BGH is actually a leek flavoured soup...

Immortal Wombat
21-06-2004, 21:09:11
Wayals.

King_Ghidra
29-06-2004, 10:42:30
saw this last night

**SPOILER WARNING**

agree with the other posters who mentioned the big leaps of logic and unexplained stuff that was covered in the book.

Two things really stuck out:

1) Why not explain the animagi thing properly

2) Why not explain the origin of the map properly

After the film i explained both of these things to my missus (who has not read the books) and she felt it made a lot more sense. She had been baffled by the appearance of the stag at the climactic patronum moment, for instance.

Anyway, i liked the general direction. I thought the use of the whomping willow as a humorous ilustration of the passing of the year was good. Ditto the clock imagery throughout which built up to the time travelling stuff at the end which was also done well.

The darker tone of this film was highly appropriate. Helps to build up to the fairly shocking fourth book.

I think the director did the best he could to make the best of the dreadful scene in the shrieking shack. I hated that bit in the book, highly anticlimactic.

Special effects were cool, liked the hippogriff a lot.

Angelhorns
29-06-2004, 17:52:32
I thought it was shit scary for a kids film.
I suppose they have to make choices about they will include in the films as her books are stuffed with details and subplots. I thought they covered most of the important stuff and it might be explained further in the next film.

BigGameHunter
29-06-2004, 18:03:02
It sounds like it's become a bit obscure for the non-reader to enjoy.
Still waiting for a good Narnia flick...

Darkstar
29-06-2004, 21:52:35
*** Minor Spoilers for people that haven't READ #3 ***





The map's origin isn't needed... EXCEPT as an explanation of why Harry's Patronus is *always* the shining white stag. Which it is only at the end of Film #3, so that was pointless. There must be a few deleted scenes that explain the bit of how the Lupin, the werewolf, formed up the dream team with his buddies and how they all became animagi so they could hang out with him safely when he was crazy for the moon. And how Black turned into a big black dog (easily mistaken for a Grim), Potter turned into a huge stag, and 'Scabbers' turned into a rat. (His name escapes me at the moment.)

Having READ the book, I didn't think the film or the book was "dark", but that may be due to Harry getting a rare true "happy ending" (learns lots about his father, gains two friends -one of which is his godfather- and gets to dream about the two of them living together in the future).

So... the film could easily be made a touch clearer... but just watching it on DVD will let those details of differences sink through to the audience. ;) But dark and suspenseful? All that business about the Grim really doesn't come through (it's constant in the book). And about half of #3 was really in Harry's head... none of that dark angst ever comes through or is even communicated in the film.

Actually, JK Rowling's books don't have many subplots. What's going on in 3? Very little. Some decent details/hints that get expanded on further, but the only real plot points happening in 3 is Harry learning more about his father's past, and him getting a more "macho" outlook ("Let him come because I want to tear out his heart!" sort of thing) due to puberty. Well, that and all his angsting over Chi...

The Mad Monk
30-06-2004, 11:41:19
HEY!!! We're discussing Narnia cartoons and Doctor Who here -- take that Harry Potter crap elsewhere!

Venom
30-06-2004, 13:49:22
It's Pettigrew, Darkstar, you twit.

Angelhorns
30-06-2004, 17:33:34
on the BBC today they reported the next one will be called 'Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince' but there's no given release date yet- apparently the title refers not to harry or voldemort, but she considered it as a title for book2 the chamber of secrets. Hmmm....

BGH they are about to start making teh Narnia films in NZ. I am gutted tho as the best book, The Magician's Nephew (incidentally the first one that sets up the 'genesis' of Narnia isnt being made!! They are instead starting with the 'crucifixion' of the Lion Witch and the Wardrobe. Still, I'll be glued- just hope the kids arent too annoying.

BigGameHunter
30-06-2004, 18:52:18
You must have been an insanely intolerable child to have such a low opinion of children.


I just found the whole Narnia collection under one cover for about $5 at Goodwill, which is great as the series collection new in the box at Borders or such is godawful expensive. I'll probably start reading it to the boys soon.

I don't know how or if they are even going to reference any of Lewis' Christian insights...it'll probably be more LOTR than New Testament...he did a good job of not beating you over the head with it.

The wife is consuming the Potter books...seems to really like them...easy to put down and pick up.
I've been trying to force feed her real literature, but if this is the best I can do, so be it...you have to start somewhere.

Currently reading Best of SF 9 compilation from 2003 stories. Not overly impressed...all are original but the writing always makes me wonder why the fuck I'm not getting paid for similar drivel.

Immortal Wombat
30-06-2004, 19:25:59
I have a theory that the Half-blood Prince may be, if not Voldemort, perhaps Tom Riddle (the second). I think it would be just like JKR to draw that kind of distinction.

Darkstar
30-06-2004, 19:47:07
Humm... my first instinct is the "Half Blood Prince" refers to Hagrid. He's a true half blood after all... half giant, half human. And he's tasked with getting the giants to be friends with Dumbledore's side. And OotP makes a big deal about his brother, after all.

fp@korea
01-07-2004, 01:05:01
I think Darkstar's got it right.

The Mad Monk
01-07-2004, 07:15:01
Originally posted by Angelhorns
on the BBC today they reported the next one will be called 'Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince' but there's no given release date yet- apparently the title refers not to harry or voldemort, but she considered it as a title for book2 the chamber of secrets. Hmmm....

BGH they are about to start making teh Narnia films in NZ. I am gutted tho as the best book, The Magician's Nephew (incidentally the first one that sets up the 'genesis' of Narnia isnt being made!! They are instead starting with the 'crucifixion' of the Lion Witch and the Wardrobe. Still, I'll be glued- just hope the kids arent too annoying.

Well, GOOD. C.S. Lewis wrote the books in a specific order for a reason, and each book contains assumptions about what has been read before it. The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe should be the first one, not the "chronologically correct" prequel The Magician's Nephew.

Immortal Wombat
01-07-2004, 12:58:19
Although Hagrid would seem to be quite likely - what with the whole Book 2 tie-ins and so forth - is that I thought JK was very carefully keeping "half-blood" distinct from "half-breed" the former being half-wizard, half-muggle, the latter being half-human, half-magicalcreature. Having said that, I can't really see a better contender from the wizarding world.

I just don't see how with Hagrid's parents being dead/gone, we can suddenly have Hagrid being a prince - or even how him being a prince could be significant enough to name the book for the fact.

Darkstar
01-07-2004, 21:20:09
Did you pay attention to the the tale of giants? All Hagrid has to do is kick the giants behinds to be their leader. Now, he will probably need a wee bit teaching of some wizard martial arts... or his half blood lover fighting with him. Both of which are hinted at.

As for what you are talking about... I don't recall Tom Riddle being called a "Half Blood". Just a MUD-BLOOD. Mixed blood wizards and witches are MUD-BLOODS... not Half-Bloods. Unless their are more then MINOR changes (soccer/football, sorcerer's stone/philosopher's stone) between the EU and US releases. But, since I'm re-reading the series as light reading at the moment, I'll keep an eye out for it and see.

Immortal Wombat
01-07-2004, 22:56:50
Hmm. I thought one-wizarding-parent kids were half-bloods. ala Seamus, Riddle, etc. Mud-bloods (terrible phrase) == Muggle-borns. ie 2 muggle parents..

Angelhorns
02-07-2004, 01:47:22
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Well, GOOD. C.S. Lewis wrote the books in a specific order for a reason, and each book contains assumptions about what has been read before it. The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe should be the first one, not the "chronologically correct" prequel The Magician's Nephew.

?????
The Magicians Nephew is the first one in chronology therefore it should go first. Otherwise he'd have written it last chronologically.

Angelhorns
02-07-2004, 01:48:37
Originally posted by BigGameHunter
You must have been an insanely intolerable child to have such a low opinion of children.


I just found the whole Narnia collection under one cover for about $5 at Goodwill, which is great as the series collection new in the box at Borders or such is godawful expensive. I'll probably start reading it to the boys soon.

I don't know how or if they are even going to reference any of Lewis' Christian insights...it'll probably be more LOTR than New Testament...he did a good job of not beating you over the head with it.

The wife is consuming the Potter books...seems to really like them...easy to put down and pick up.
I've been trying to force feed her real literature, but if this is the best I can do, so be it...you have to start somewhere.

Currently reading Best of SF 9 compilation from 2003 stories. Not overly impressed...all are original but the writing always makes me wonder why the fuck I'm not getting paid for similar drivel.

I was insanely well behaved, which is probably worse. I dont have a low opinion of kids, they are just annoying if you're not interested in them. ESPECIALLY child actors.

Darkstar
02-07-2004, 02:27:22
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Hmm. I thought one-wizarding-parent kids were half-bloods. ala Seamus, Riddle, etc. Mud-bloods (terrible phrase) == Muggle-borns. ie 2 muggle parents..

Mud blood is anyone that isn't a pure blood, Wombat. Technically, Harry is a Mud-Blood... because his *mom* is from a Muggle family. But being "the famous Harry Potter", he is the epitome of the young wizard, so he'd never be called a mud-blood... in public.

To be a pure blood, ALL of your ancestors have to be wizards... which is of course impossible, which is why the non-Purists laugh at the Purists. AIR, anyways.

Funkodrom
03-07-2004, 12:18:40
Originally posted by Angelhorns
?????
The Magicians Nephew is the first one in chronology therefore it should go first. Otherwise he'd have written it last chronologically.

First one in the chronology but wasn't written first. He wrote it as a prequel later in the series and you get more out of it by knowing more about the world, it puts a lot of things from later stories in context.

I understand exactly what TMM meant. The Lion Witch and Wardrobe has all the revalations about Narnia in it, The Magicians Nephew comes from a base where the reader already knows there is a world on the other side of the wardrobe.

Angelhorns
03-07-2004, 12:52:47
yeah I know what he meant, but I read it first and it still made perfect sense. I suppose prequels can be read at any time really, like the hobbit

Darkstar
19-07-2004, 20:03:49
Immortal Wombat...

I ended up going back and reading #2 for various reason. While doing so, I did find a specific spot where half-blood is actually used (Full-blood, half-blood, mudblood). But in most of the book, any "mud" makes a person a full "mudblood".

So, it seems either is correct, depending on circumstances. ;)

Sweeper
21-07-2004, 03:48:39
What were the circumstances?

BigGameHunter
21-07-2004, 16:07:52
A bunch of nerds arguing over a poorly written children's book.

Angelhorns
21-07-2004, 21:41:08
the quality of character writing and the overall 'literaryness' is poor (btw you are the first person I know of who agrees with me on that) but the plots are so addictive and incredibly detailed. She's created a whole new world and you have to respect the mass appeal of the books.

BigGameHunter
21-07-2004, 21:54:23
I abhor mass appeal. There is something very cultish and weird about such things.

I do however applaud Rowling for getting tons of people to read that usually don't and for making reading a fun experience for kids. Many kids will now be readers who otherwise wouldn't have.
I think Stephen King, Ray Bradbury and a few others should get special awards for that sort of thing.
I could not get into the first book, but didn't try very hard. However, C.S. Lewis has completely got me with Narnia again...don't know what the difference is---cadence? Pacing? Characters?

Funkodrom
21-07-2004, 22:48:03
Originally posted by Angelhorns
the quality of character writing and the overall 'literaryness' is poor (btw you are the first person I know of who agrees with me on that) but the plots are so addictive and incredibly detailed. She's created a whole new world and you have to respect the mass appeal of the books.

In Potter? I agree with that. It's more like a hollywood thriller than an italian art movie.

Darkstar
21-07-2004, 23:15:12
Sweeper... it's a social matter. When purists do not want to insult a "half blood", he's not referred to as a mudblood. When they do want to insult him, he is. That's the basic circumstances. So it's just a matter of inclusion or not by purists. Of course, calling someone "half" is the same as calling them "mud", as it is a direct reminder that his blood is still "muddy", so it's not often done other then as a dig/insult.

fp
21-07-2004, 23:50:04
I can't imagine what on earth "overall literaryness" is supposed to mean.

Angelhorns
23-07-2004, 00:42:24
well its just not a very techically well written book in terms of style. Content and plot/pace however are fantastic.

Angelhorns
23-07-2004, 00:43:46
Originally posted by BigGameHunter
I abhor mass appeal. There is something very cultish and weird about such things.

I do however applaud Rowling for getting tons of people to read that usually don't and for making reading a fun experience for kids. Many kids will now be readers who otherwise wouldn't have.
I think Stephen King, Ray Bradbury and a few others should get special awards for that sort of thing.
I could not get into the first book, but didn't try very hard. However, C.S. Lewis has completely got me with Narnia again...don't know what the difference is---cadence? Pacing? Characters?

Why abhor it? Its a wonderful gift to be able to create something that can touch or influence so many different people.

I think you're jealous Mr Great American Novel ;)

BigGameHunter
23-07-2004, 00:52:32
Nah...if the vast majority of the world loves something, it can't be any good, really.

Like Mr. Marx once said "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member."

Angelhorns
23-07-2004, 00:56:33
nonsense- that means chocolate and sex are no good. I'm not a religious woman, but you're shaking the grounds of all my beliefs here!

BigGameHunter
23-07-2004, 01:16:45
Chocolate and sex are millenia old...Harry Potter is a flash in the relativistic plan.

Angelhorns
23-07-2004, 01:33:12
you cant take it back now!!

Funkodrom
23-07-2004, 14:42:36
Originally posted by Angelhorns
well its just not a very techically well written book in terms of style. Content and plot/pace however are fantastic.

Well it's a kids book so the style is totally appropriate.

zmama
23-07-2004, 15:42:23
I enjoyed them. The greatest works of art? No, but just darn fun and the books get better as the story progresses.

Funkodrom
23-07-2004, 16:07:01
The fact that they are so exciting must be in some way down to the style. Being a great read is more important than some esoteric idea of literary style anyway.

Vincent
23-07-2004, 16:25:06
Of course it's not as good as "Ulysses". Did anyone survive that one BTW?

I listened to the Potter books on CD and it was quite fun. Usually fell asleep after 20 minutes, but I blame the wine rather than the books. Part 5 was a little too epic: 27 CDs ...

Darkstar
23-07-2004, 18:44:27
Light reading is light reading. Why pick on it? It's not meant as the Greatest Piece of Literature Written in the Modern Era, after all.

It's like a text only form of a comic. ;)

Help TCO
23-07-2004, 23:57:53
TLWW comes first.

BigGameHunter
24-07-2004, 00:21:27
Only in reference to written order. His preferred timeline starts with The Magician's Nephew.

Help TCO
24-07-2004, 01:28:32
Bullshit. The order as far as the kids (who are the protagonists) goes in the order written. Have you even read these, shitforbrains? Talking out of your ass again?

Help TCO
24-07-2004, 01:29:27
Have you read Shadowlands? Have you read his biography?

BigGameHunter
24-07-2004, 08:44:17
Bullshit. The order as far as the kids (who are the protagonists) goes in the order written.

My dear sir, if I am interpreting your rather inebriated and somewhat fragmented statement correctly, I have to beg to differ. There is some evidence indicating that Mr. Lewis did not know that the series would continue beyond the first book, or the second, etc., and that subsequent books in the body of work were undertaken to edify what was becoming a popular collection. This in no way verifies that the written order was the ultimately intended one, in fact, in a letter to a young American fan, Lewis seems to show a slight inclination toward the chronological. To wit:
'I think I agree with your order {i.e. chronological} for reading the books more than with your mother's. The series was not planned beforehand as she thinks. When I wrote The Lion I did not know I was going to write any more. Then I wrote P. Caspian as a sequel and still didn't think there would be any more, and when I had done The Voyage I felt quite sure it would be the last. But I found as I was wrong. So perhaps it does not matter very much in which order anyone read them. I'm not even sure that all the others were written in the same order in which they were published.

Quoted in "Letters to Children"

Your statement that "Bullshit. The order as far as the kids (who are the protagonists)--gee, thanks for pointing that out...almost had to break out my MLA handbook to verify that one! goes in (sic, or, in your case "hic!") the order written" is so eloquently worded, so strongly (albeit somewhat profanely) persuaded, that I fear I have caused some additionally deep and grave emotional damage to your already schizoid personality. Perhaps this series was a cherished escape from a troubled and isolated childhood, spent primarily huddled under bedcovers whilst Mum and Dad argued over the last remaining drops of Chivas in the kitchen?
But I digress...

Have you even read these, shitforbrains? Talking out of your ass again?

Yes, I have read this series several times, in the original order. I am now reading it in the chronological order to see if a different interpretation might be gained. Perhaps you and I can meet here once more on the hallowed battlefields of intellect once I've read it in this order? If my (as you so poetically put it) "shitforbrains" are up to the Herculean task, I might even endeavor to attempt something so audacious, so ill advised (in light of your obviously superior grasp of language, writing, literature and simple research) as to discuss this work in depth. Would you, could you, please favor me with perhaps your Marxist criticism of this work? Or could you grace me with your Feminist critique? Is the White Witch representative of Lewis' male Christian patriarchal attitude toward woman in general? Maybe I'm off the mark--your laserlike insights and contributions to other discussions on this forum might lend themselves more to a Deconstructionalist approach?

In any case, I eagerly await the opportunity to sit at the knee of the master, gathering equally to my heaving breast your gems of wisdom, complicated gibes and thought provoking challenges!

Asshole.

Vincent
24-07-2004, 09:57:16
Ah, fuck, I mean: It's just a book, yer know!

BigGameHunter
24-07-2004, 10:48:03
Yeah...well...he was irritating and I was bored.

Help TCO
24-07-2004, 12:36:46
Damnit. Wasn't expecting that response. I thought you were going to give me a beatdown. I'm in Richmond now, not Atlanta. Guess you came over and I wasn't there. Sorry about that, slugger.

Still, what do you think of the point that the "normal order" is the order in which the protagonists age? The order in which different children are brought into the series (with overlap)?

And if you're so smart, why haven't you read Harry pothead? You can get them at the 'brary.

Help TCO
24-07-2004, 12:37:08
And how can you tell when I'm drinking?

The Mad Monk
24-07-2004, 14:07:40
You tend to be a trollish drunk?

Vincent
24-07-2004, 14:53:39
And even more stupid. Unbelievable, but that's the way it is

Help TCO
24-07-2004, 15:15:28
I never thought much of you either, the only thing you seem to have going is this kinship with people who started the site. But you never say anything that catches my fancy. At least you're not doing Olliie poly so I can have you off ignore.

Vincent
24-07-2004, 16:02:26
That's hard. Stop whining, polyboy.

Help TCO
24-07-2004, 16:50:56
Just a statement, big guy.

Angelhorns
24-07-2004, 20:11:42
Originally posted by Funkodrom
Well it's a kids book so the style is totally appropriate.

I mean the writing style- I know its a kids book, but her style is still somewhat lacking- she repeats herself a lot, her characters have little depth- the stories are plot driven which is why they are such a compelling read. Just because its a kids book doesnt mean those things should be lacking necessarily. I think they're great books, but its her created world, the details, and the unfolding of the plot Agatha Christie style that are the hooks. I think the weaknesses in her writing are particularly exposed in Book 5 where even the plot was saggy and over complex in parts. She really needed her editor to intervene more in that one.

Still, I think she's brought magic back to books and reading for kids and adults alike, so long may she reign. Frank Sinatra wasn't a technically great singer, but he was a great singer :)

BigGameHunter
24-07-2004, 22:09:29
Originally posted by Help TCO
Damnit. Wasn't expecting that response. I thought you were going to give me a beatdown. I'm in Richmond now, not Atlanta. Guess you came over and I wasn't there. Sorry about that, slugger.

Still, what do you think of the point that the "normal order" is the order in which the protagonists age? The order in which different children are brought into the series (with overlap)?

And if you're so smart, why haven't you read Harry pothead? You can get them at the 'brary.

Point 1: I highly doubt our physical interaction would be any more of a success for you than our written one has been.
:lol:

Point 2: By "normal" do you mean the originally released order or the newly favored chronological printing?
In either case, most discussion around this admittedly trite but oddly compelling debate leans toward the benefits of reading them both ways. I'm glad I read them in the original order first, because there is the added joy of getting new and revelatory books later in the series. It's always fun when new material is added to a body of work that one enjoys. Case in point for myself has been the Riverworld series by Philip Jose Farmer, where other authors have riffed on his world. Great short stories and further adventures that cover historical figures that he did not.
I don't think a federal case needs to be made out of it--has the same effect on me that homosexuality does--I'm not personally threatened by either approach and if people can find happiness through "different ways of loving" then more power to them.

Point 3: So far, Potter has failed to grab me, which is the type of reader I am, plain and simple. Either is works or it doesn't. I'll put down a book by a favority author if it doesn't resonate with me. Though I will try again with Potter, because I think the timing has just been wrong so far. I still don't think it will make my top 10 list.

Darkstar
25-07-2004, 04:15:39
Originally posted by BigGameHunter
My dear sir, if I am ...

:lol:


: Golf clap :

Help TCO
25-07-2004, 17:31:53
Yeah, it's not that big a deal what order you read them. I read them in a random order and still liked them. Not that it's important, but I still don't think you get my point about the order. I'm not talking about the chronology of when Lewis wrote them, but about the time path of the children who are the protagonists.

BigGameHunter
25-07-2004, 22:51:01
Well, seeing as how I'm just starting over, my recollection of all the characters and their ages, etc. is a little foggy.
It would make sense to do that, sure...but with Magician's Nephew, it's different characters altogether and I believe (perhaps wrongly) that the wardrobe kids will age properly after that...

Help TCO
26-07-2004, 02:16:24
No, dude. Well I don't really recall the kids there. But what I do recall is that the chronology of the kids fits with Magician's Nephews. It's that Aslan sends them back in time.

Funkodrom
26-07-2004, 09:29:09
Originally posted by Angelhorns
I mean the writing style- I know its a kids book, but her style is still somewhat lacking- she repeats herself a lot, her characters have little depth- the stories are plot driven which is why they are such a compelling read. Just because its a kids book doesnt mean those things should be lacking necessarily. I think they're great books, but its her created world, the details, and the unfolding of the plot Agatha Christie style that are the hooks. I think the weaknesses in her writing are particularly exposed in Book 5 where even the plot was saggy and over complex in parts. She really needed her editor to intervene more in that one.

Still, I think she's brought magic back to books and reading for kids and adults alike, so long may she reign. Frank Sinatra wasn't a technically great singer, but he was a great singer :)

Yeah, but book 5 was my favourite so far. You suck.

The Mad Monk
27-07-2004, 06:06:50
Group hug!

zmama
27-07-2004, 11:43:48
Only if you all shower first...and Lurker needs a flea dip too

Help TCO
27-07-2004, 23:00:26
Could I do you from behind while the water drips down on us?

Funkodrom
28-07-2004, 09:12:54
I'll put 1000 on "No."

zmama
28-07-2004, 11:34:57
Ah , not very good with the ladies, I see. Funko is correct, he wins the 1000.

Perhaps my best friend will make a good substitute for your shower scene, TCO. :D

Venom
28-07-2004, 12:53:00
He was in the Navy. He's only good with men.

Funkodrom
28-07-2004, 12:57:04
Ah, yes, hence his suggestion. Makes more sense if it's him and some petty officer in the shower.

zmama
28-07-2004, 13:40:31
My best friend is a man :)

Funkodrom
28-07-2004, 13:47:07
And that's relevant because?

zmama
28-07-2004, 14:00:44
Just so Navy will be more comfortable :D

Funkodrom
28-07-2004, 14:22:07
Ah, you should have told him you slept with men but told people you weren't gay. ;)

Venom
28-07-2004, 16:43:14
Dare I get back on topic?

Yes. I dare.

I just finished Potter 5 and I have to say that it was my favorite also. The battle at the end would make for great film.

BigGameHunter
28-07-2004, 17:31:22
Nerds vs. Wankers cage match?

DevilsH@lo
29-07-2004, 18:51:17
Originally posted by Venom
Dare I get back on topic?

Yes. I dare.

I just finished Potter 5 and I have to say that it was my favorite also. The battle at the end would make for great film.

you and funko both suck monkeynuts. 4 was the best- the ending was terrifying! I did like 5 though although i didnt connect with sirius at all. Maybe I need a re read, I read all 5 in quick succession so maybe I was pottered out.

-AH

BigGameHunter
29-07-2004, 19:27:01
Why can't you just log in as yourself?

Darkstar
29-07-2004, 19:51:18
Well, I didn't connect much with Sirius either. And the reason is simply... he is just a background NPC. In #3, he's the villian. In #4, he's a concerned pen-pal that only appears in a handful of scenes. In #5, he's finally around for a bit to get some real character development/screen time... but then, well, you know what happens.

Honestly, it wasn't like with Neville, who has been a developing (mostly comedy relief to sometime side-kick).

#5 has a lot of charcter and plot development in it... but I think it needed a bit of fat trimming to make it the "Best So Far" of the series.

TCO
30-07-2004, 02:27:21
I didn't get that much from Sirius either.

TCO
30-07-2004, 02:27:57
HP needs to lay the smack down. You know who is killing a character a book now. Can't be takign that.

Darkstar
30-07-2004, 07:45:30
It's just training for the readers so they won't die of shock when Harry and 'Darth Vader is my hero!' kill each other in #7.

Venom
30-07-2004, 12:49:47
Originally posted by DevilsH@lo
you and funko both suck monkeynuts. 4 was the best- the ending was terrifying! I did like 5 though although i didnt connect with sirius at all. Maybe I need a re read, I read all 5 in quick succession so maybe I was pottered out.

-AH

I will agree with the boobtacular one in disguise. I really liked the end of 4, but the information in 5 was outstanding. And I think the end of 5 was just as good as 4.

Darkstar
30-07-2004, 15:51:55
Personally, I thought #4's ending was a bit forced. There were some serious problems with it (if the whole school is watching, how did Dumbledore miss the twist villian casting mind control magics? How did Minerva, Snape, and the others experienced at spotting it and fighting it miss it? They were *all* too busy watching the prettiest witch wiggle and jiggle?). It does have that typical "Harry survives by an ocean of luck and an eye lash" ending...

It does well as the series major turning point in the Harry versus Big Bad Guy, but it just has the feel that it was more beaten into its particular path then what flow the story wants to take naturally. Most of those points prior to that in the series aren't quite so er... titantic. ;)

But, since its light reading and not a real mystery... ;)

BigGameHunter
30-07-2004, 19:53:37
If anyone wants to talk about Narnia, let me know...I think I have to leave this thread in case I see more spoilers and ruin the experience of possibley reading this load of crap.

Darkstar
30-07-2004, 20:02:56
You've seen the movies though, haven't you BGH? So you know the main plot points for 1 - 3.

BigGameHunter
30-07-2004, 20:23:02
Err..I've seen the first with one eye...I know the kid was orphaned, he's a stranger in a strange land with great untapped powers and destined for greatness, as well as having evil schemers plotting his downfall...gosh, what an original storyline!
;)

Darkstar
30-07-2004, 20:26:43
Ah. Well, then, what are you doing in a thread about Harry #3 movie? :) Obviously, this is going to have spoilers in it! Well, to *you*. ;)

BigGameHunter
30-07-2004, 20:31:19
I know...I'm such a culture rebel.

Darkstar
30-07-2004, 20:35:06
You mean, you just wanted to be part of the crowd! :D

BigGameHunter
30-07-2004, 20:43:23
Part of the crowd that ignored HP??? Where does that crowd meet, on the head of a pin?

Darkstar
30-07-2004, 20:44:26
No... I meant, part of the crowd talking about HP here!

If you want to be part of the anti-HP crowd, you shouldn't be posting in this thread, should you?

BigGameHunter
30-07-2004, 21:45:12
You've seen right through my aching loneliness...is it that obvious?
I half thought of pretending I'd read them, but alas, I feared I'd be made out a fake and further ostracized from the few people here who tolerated my presence.

I'll go now...to read about Narnia...alone...sniff.

fp
30-07-2004, 23:42:42
Originally posted by BigGameHunter
Part of the crowd that ignored HP??? Where does that crowd meet, on the head of a pin?

Being anti-conformist is one of the most conformist things you can do. Or something like that.

BigGameHunter
31-07-2004, 00:03:55
Well, I think C.S. Lewis is just a far superior writer and the whole thing is a bit too similar for me to give it the time and proper effort now.
It's like how I couldn't read Asimov after Bradbury...I knew what I liked and the other was a pale comparison.
But I'm not saying people are sheep or stupid or can't think for themselves or have bought into a massive marketing ploy.
Enjoy!

Darkstar
31-07-2004, 07:53:48
I didn't care about the *marketing*, BGH. I had it recommended to me by 3 different people that I know well, including their literary taste (all different). And one of those lent me her book, because she thought I'd like it. Turned out my friends were right.

It's *light* reading. It doesn't take itself seriously, so I doubt most adults would take it seriously. But you might like it. Nothing wrong with that, is there? Is there anyone here whose taste you understand/trust that has said "its a nice read"? I don't recall anyone saying it should be put up as "The Series" for humanity. ;)

If you are going to whine about "originality", then you should just stop reading. There's only 12 possible plots... and they've all been used and reused to death since before our ancestors figured out how to light a fire.

Continuing to sneer about it isn't getting you any closer. You haven't even read book 1, just seen the movie, right? So how would you KNOW which you enjoy reading more? Are you basing it on which movie you enjoyed more... The Lion versus The Sorceror's Stone?

I'm just jerking your chain, BGH. But I do wonder how you can say you prefer something when you admit you haven't really tried it. Other then watching the movie, which we know is never as good as the book. ;)

BigGameHunter
31-07-2004, 16:17:04
The problem is, I have tried to read it a couple of times...it just didn't grab hold.
Mrs. BGH is going throug it like grease through a goose...she's on Book 3 now...and she's not a big reader.
So I'll give it another shot now that the books are laying around.
It's the type of book a kid would like I'm sure, so I'll have to read it in any case, as I want to be the kind of parent who previews and is knowledgeable about what the kids are consuming.
I'm just fucking with you guys...I'm sure it's great.

TCO
31-07-2004, 16:56:38
I was one of the people who didn't read it cause I'm not swayed by fads. When I did, I enjoyed it. It is not deep, but it hits a niche in terms of the whole wizard school.

Nav
31-07-2004, 18:40:10
yeah the wizard school genre is hot property now....................

Darkstar
01-08-2004, 03:27:01
BGH, it might be a better read when you read it to your kids. ;)

TCO, it's niche is wizard school? I thought it was kid detective niche. Any light fantasy where the kids outsmart the adults is popular with the kiddies. Tag in a bit of humor now and then to keep the parents from going to sleep while reading the book to their kids, and you got a steady seller. ;)

TCO
01-08-2004, 11:49:46
I didn't express myself well. What I mean is that Rowling hit a sweet spot with something that reminds us of our school days.

Darkstar
02-08-2004, 05:10:41
Really? It reminds you of school? It doesn't remind me of my school days in the slightest. It does remind me of the classic b grade "kids detective novels" from the 70s. Other then swapping a bit of "science" for a bit of "magic", it's very similar to the "Scientist Junior Detective Club" actually. Well,, with some darker bits mixed in. But its still kids saving the world and making most of their adults look like idiots or just too craven to do anything. ;)

TCO
11-08-2004, 01:38:30
Ok it reminds me of the British school days that I never had.

BigGameHunter
11-08-2004, 21:17:28
It's The Goonies with magic and stuff.

I thought the US Navy was a close approximation of British school days?

Darkstar
11-08-2004, 21:40:40
<Venom> Lots of pillow biting? </Venom>