babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » New Harry Potter Movie!

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: New Harry Potter Movie!
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 20 November 2005 09:02 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I will admit that I was never into Harry Potter until I met my sweetie, who has had a bad influence on me. I've now read the 6 books, including reading the 6th one in 3 days when it came out in July. Ack.

So we went to see the new movie last night. We got tickets for the late show (9:15) and stood in line for 40 minutes for our seats. I don't normally do that, so it must be love... We withstood the loud pre-teens (in line and in the theatre) and we loved it! Scary, and intense, but the 4th book was the most intense and scary at that point, so it fits.

Who else has seen it? Who else is a fan? C'mon, there are Harry fans out there, I know there are.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 20 November 2005 09:57 PM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
I will admit that I was never into Harry Potter until I met my sweetie, who has had a bad influence on me. I've now read the 6 books, including reading the 6th one in 3 days when it came out in July. Ack.

So we went to see the new movie last night. We got tickets for the late show (9:15) and stood in line for 40 minutes for our seats. I don't normally do that, so it must be love... We withstood the loud pre-teens (in line and in the theatre) and we loved it! Scary, and intense, but the 4th book was the most intense and scary at that point, so it fits.

Who else has seen it? Who else is a fan? C'mon, there are Harry fans out there, I know there are.


Because of my inability to spend time in a dark closed space, I wont see it till it comes out on DVD, I can hardly wait...
Ichy


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 20 November 2005 10:07 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I saw it last night with Mrs. oldgoat, my kids, and a couple of nephews. I'm not a huge fan myself, but I saw the first two movies and my kids keep me up to date on events at Hogwarts.

I quite enjoyed it and thought it was very well done. Both my wife and daughter enjoyed the brief shot of Daniel Radcliffe in that bath scene.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 21 November 2005 12:14 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I went to see it tonight with my wife and our nine-year-old, and I left thinking it worked fairly well as a movie.

I will say that I find both the movie and, to a lesser extent, the book flawed by a lack of plausible motivation for this dangerous Tri-Wizard tournament. Why must it be held? Why must it go forward, apparently at all costs, even after obvious perils threaten its participants? What is its point?

Answers of a sort are offered to these questions, but--especially in the movie--they aren't very satisfying.

That criticism aside, I think the movie did a good job of bringing the major characters through the challenges of adolescent angst. Speaking of plot issues beyond the level of personal characterization, I think the movie also effectively dramatized the return of Lord Voldemort, freighting it with sufficient significance by visual and other means.

(As I'm typing this post, my wife reminds me that she thinks Harry doesn't come off as heroic in the movie as he does in the book.)


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 21 November 2005 12:28 AM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I went to see it at midnight on thursday, forgetting entirely what the book was about. The thing is: I went with someone who I have a silly junior high-style crush on, so the whole first half of the movie was spent with awkward fidgeting going on (on my part, I don't know about his). I think the movie over-emphasized the "romantic" elements of the book, considering how much they cut from the story. I did like the parts about Neville being really into dancing though -- that was cute.

sgm, i definitely agree with your wife re: Harry's heroism.


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 21 November 2005 11:08 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
Both my wife and daughter enjoyed the brief shot of Daniel Radcliffe in that bath scene.

Heehee, yeah that scene was really sexed up for the movie I think. Who knew Murtle was so scandalous?

I loved the effects in the maze, and the scary underwater mermaids.

But I missed seeing more of the evil Draco, Snape, Dumble and Maggie Smith. I don't remember the dancing lesson from the book....


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 27 November 2005 01:41 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am a big fan of Harry Potter. I wanted to see the movie but was too busy. Someday.
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 27 November 2005 02:25 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have never gotten into the books, because they sound very inferior to things like Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising children's fantasy series. The first movie didn't help with this impression: I could barely watch it after the whole magical candy scene---such things irritate this SF/Fantasy snob in anything but Discworldian satire.

The second movie was more impressive, but still meh, for me. So I didn't bother watching the third.

I saw this one, and while there are still irritating candies, I thought it was much better. There was a level of "epic grimness" that didn't exist in the second movie. To discuss why I think this I'd have to emit spoilers.

quote:
I will say that I find both the movie and, to a lesser extent, the book flawed by a lack of plausible motivation for this dangerous Tri-Wizard tournament. Why must it be held? Why must it go forward, apparently at all costs, even after obvious perils threaten its participants? What is its point?

Binding Magical Contracts are not to be toyed with.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 27 November 2005 02:54 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought it was the best Potter movie so far, but I still think the book was better. They had to dumb it down so as not to frighten the six-year-olds they wanted to attract to the movie theaters. The goblet of fire marked the beginning of Harry's decent into darkness. They could have made it really scary, but they decided not to. I was quite disappointed.
I think Tim Burton should write and direct the order of the Phoenix.

P.S. Emma Watson is a terrible actress and far too pretty for the role of Hermione.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
ouroboros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9250

posted 28 November 2005 01:49 PM      Profile for ouroboros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I reread the book just before I saw it, always a big mistake, and I was very disappointed with the movie.

They cut out large parts of the book (all I’ll say is Quidditch World Cup) and changed many other parts far too much (the dragon challenge). And the whole scene with the other schools entering Hogwarts for the first time was just too silly for words, with the entrance of the Beauxbaton girls being very bad (and since when was Beauxbaton a all girl school in the book?)

I don’t mind small changes from book to movie but I really didn’t enjoy the changes in this movie or the movie over all. It was pretty clear to me that the movie was made with an eye on keeping it cheap. They really should have done it as two movie, a la Kill Bill. Maybe they’ll get the next one right.


From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 28 November 2005 02:35 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've read all the books countless times.

Although I don't like the girl that they got to play Cho Chang. I envisioned a different sort of girl. Softer voice, mostly.

I should've been a Slytherin in that movie, I really should've. I coulda totally played Crabbe or any of the others. Heck, even Malfoy!


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 28 November 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah, the much under-discussed minor characters...
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:
Although I don't like the girl that they got to play Cho Chang. I envisioned a different sort of girl. Softer voice, mostly.
She looked the part, but the Scottish accent was a bit of a surprise.

Among the "champions", I thought that Cedric was well cast as a solid decent jock kind of guy, and Viktor Krum was also pretty good... although both actors looked too old to be 17 or 18 (or whatever they were supposed to be). But Fleur de la Coeur was terribly miscast. She really had to be radiantly beautiful, seemingly snobby and very athletic. But the actress they chose wasn't really any of those things.

[ 28 November 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 11 December 2005 08:32 PM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I saw the movie the day it opened in Toronto. As a big fan of the books, I find the movies disappointing, but this one was the best of the movies. I agree that it should have been done in 2 parts so that they didn't have to cut so much. No Dursleys and Ton-Tongue Toffee. No Winky. No pajama party (the scene where Snape, Mad-Eye Moody, and Filch all argue in the hallway at night in their pajamas while Harry watches from under his Invisibility Cloak).

Though the guy playing Mad-Eye was excellent. The DADA class where he demonstrates the Unforgivable curses was riveting.

Generally, the movies have been giving short shrift to the backstory, and I think it's going to become problematic in the later movies, as the backstory, as those of us who have read HBP know, is moving to the front.


From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 11 December 2005 11:02 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I really haven't got a clue what they're going to do for the next movie. There is just waaay too much indispensible plot going on to fit into anything close to two hours. How much can you cut before the story stops making sense altogether?
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 11 December 2005 11:10 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The thing is that J.K. Rowling can tell them what details must be present to play a part in the later stories. I read somewhere that she had told Alan Ryckman what Snape was going to do down the road.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 12 December 2005 12:33 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
as those of us who have read HBP know, is moving to the front.

Don't you mean HPB?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 12 December 2005 12:41 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, Half Blood Prince.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tehanu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9854

posted 12 December 2005 12:47 AM      Profile for Tehanu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
I have never gotten into the books, because they sound very inferior to things like Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising children's fantasy series.

Oooh, I love The Dark is Rising series. I used to get scary chills, particulary with Greenwitch. Thanks for the reminder, I'll have to dig them out!

I actually think I liked the third movie the best, although I haven't seen anyone more than once, and this is from someone who watches movies and rereads books over and over. THe first two were just a little too slavishly faithful to the books.

Another problem the movie makers are going to run up against is Harry's over the top I-hate-everyone teenage angst in [i]Order of the Phoenix[i]. Hard to portray a sympathetic and heroic character who's busy pissing everyone off.

As an aside, Ursula K. LeGuin is a bit scathing about Harry Potter, pointing out that the idea of a wizard's school is hardly new (Earthsea series), although giving J.K. Rowling some few chops for including girls, which LeGuin didn't do until much later.


From: Desperately trying to stop procrastinating | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Melsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4748

posted 12 December 2005 12:56 AM      Profile for Melsky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I haven't seen any of the movies, I'm not a big movie person. I've enjoyed he books though. I'm on a waiting list to get the latest one out of the toronto library. When I got on the list this summer I was fourthousandsomething in line. Now I only have a couple hundred people ahead of me.

I'll have to check out that Dark is Rising series.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 12 December 2005 04:13 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's very good, but veeery serious. The reason Harry Potter is so popular is because it's fun and goofy more often than it's scary and foreboding.

quote:
As an aside, Ursula K. LeGuin is a bit scathing about Harry Potter

Really? That doesn't sound like her. Do you have a link for these comments?


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 12 December 2005 02:08 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Guardian Books

quote:
Nicholas Lezard has written 'Rowling can type, but Le Guin can write.' What do you make of this comment in the light of the phenomenal success of the Potter books? I'd like to hear your opinion of JK Rowling's writing style

UKL: I have no great opinion of it. When so many adult critics were carrying on about the "incredible originality" of the first Harry Potter book, I read it to find out what the fuss was about, and remained somewhat puzzled; it seemed a lively kid's fantasy crossed with a "school novel", good fare for its age group, but stylistically ordinary, imaginatively derivative, and ethically rather mean-spirited.


With regard to "Goblet", I found myself impatient for what you might call "the main event" to happen, and I guess I mistook the wizard contest for a warm up! It seemed kind of paltry to me, there being no underlying evil force to deal with, and I knew Potter would come out all right. There were a lot of attractive distractions what with the special effects, but that's been boring me lately in a lot of movies. The teen angst was okay, but I was hoping it would have some greater consequence than a lot of repetitive pouting. (BTW, did anyone notice that there seemed to be a few missing beats in the dance sequence? At the end, there's a disjointed jump where suddenly the girl is freaking out that the guys ruin everything and she rushes off; I know they were being poopy and all, but her reaction seemed provoked by a more specific and sharp action. What happened to her hunky date? Why is she alone now? It seems there was some substance cut, that made this seem melodramatic.

Anyway, I wanted the bad guy or the bad guy's minions to show up. The nasty kid who gets turned into a ferret has one belligerent scene, and that's it. (What, no reprisals?) Ralph Fiennes was terrific, but it would have have been nice to see him or his influence exerted with some greater emphasis earlier. I was fidgeting for the last hour.

[ 12 December 2005: Message edited by: bittersweet ]


From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 12 December 2005 02:21 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just started getting into the books now. I've also watched the first movie (Philosopher's Stone), and that movie, I think, cut out some of the elements without losing too much of the plot. All in all I like the detail in the books better, for obvious reasons.

I'll wait till the movies all get out on DVD. Subtitles are good.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tehanu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9854

posted 12 December 2005 02:31 PM      Profile for Tehanu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks bittersweet! Beat me to it ...

Ursula LeGuin was also - very justifiedly - steamingly upset at the dog's breakfast that the SciFi channel made of A Wizard of Earthsea. So maybe she's envious of the control that J.K.Rowling has over the content of the Harry Potter movies?

While I'm a firm believer that some artistic license is allowable/desirable when adapting a book to a movie, I think the author should be at least consulted, if not have significant input. The Earthsea movie would bolster the idea that the author (and fans) should have a veto.

Among the horribleness was that LeGuin's main characters were POC and yet, surprise surprise, the film made them white. Why?!? (Okay, that was a rhetorical why).

Oh and I goofed, she said that the one good thing the filmmakers did was to let the girls go to Roke school, not J.K. Rowling.

As she says in Locus:

quote:
I live in a racially bigoted country. From the start, I saw my Earthsea as a deliberate refusal to go along with the prejudice that sees white as the norm, and the fantasy tradition that accepts the prejudice.

If you're white, ask a colored reader of fantasy whether it matters. Ask them how often they found themselves in fantasy books or movies when they were growing up, and how they felt about it.

I'm only sorry it took me to Book Four of Earthsea to be able to refuse the prejudice that sees male as the norm. That matters, too. And in this respect the filmmakers did pretty well, even allowing girls to go to Roke School.



From: Desperately trying to stop procrastinating | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 12 December 2005 02:42 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think, bittersweet, that even in the book Goblet of Fire the usual bad guys were not too visible, because Moody was careful to scare them off all through the school year; and of course, we know now why he was being so protective and wanted Harry to win the contest.

I read an article by Richard Adams, who wrote Watership Down, which criticised the first Harry Potter book as being too classist. I thought he was a little unfair, but could see his point to some extent.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 12 December 2005 08:14 PM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Stylistically, JK Rowling isn't the best writer out there. Many critics, most notably Stephen King, have taken her to task for her gross overuse of adverbs, some quite clunky (willingly, imploringly, snidely, ad nauseum). Stephen calculated that Order of the Phoenix would have been 100 pages shorter if she'd eliminated the adverbs. Also, her characterisations are a bit broad. But I think she's a gifted storyteller with a knack for pulling together various complicated plot elements (like time travel) to make a coherent and compelling story.

[ 12 December 2005: Message edited by: Sineed ]


From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 12 December 2005 09:45 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And most importantly, her books are fun. People act like this isn't important.

In that context, LeGuin's comments make more sense. If I had read the first book on its own, I probably would have said the same thing, but the story improves immeasurably over the course of the novels. I think POA and GOF in particular are wonderfully imaginative by anyone's standards.

Of course, none of them on their own could compare to the sheer poetry of A Wizard of Earthsea, but heck, if we judged everything by that standard nobody would write anymore.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 12 December 2005 09:54 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, I love the inventiveness of the details; hexes for twitchy-ears and jelly-legs; the fake wands; the magical candy; the moving photos and paintings that speak; Ron's "eat slugs" curse backfiring on him. And the teenage angst; getting embarrassed in front of a crowd; and the boys' shenanigans before and during the dance.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tuppence
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4191

posted 13 December 2005 01:53 AM      Profile for Tuppence     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I loved this film. Cedric Diggory is totally my new jailbait boyfriend. Rrrrrowr.

One complaint- Jonny Greenwood (Radiohead's lead guitarist and my musical idol- he and bandmate Phil Selway were in the band at the Yule Ball) was only in it for, like, two seconds. Bit disappointing.


From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 13 December 2005 02:01 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuppence:
I loved this film. Cedric Diggory is totally my new jailbait boyfriend. Rrrrrowr.
Hah. That's funny. But the guy's 19. Go wild, and ... no jail for you!

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tuppence
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4191

posted 13 December 2005 02:09 AM      Profile for Tuppence     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Score!
From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 December 2005 04:03 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sgm:
I will say that I find both the movie and, to a lesser extent, the book flawed by a lack of plausible motivation for this dangerous Tri-Wizard tournament. Why must it be held? Why must it go forward, apparently at all costs, even after obvious perils threaten its participants? What is its point?

I had that same reaction, but the tournament is consistant with other elements of the story -- dangerous classroom lessons (including dueling and deadly plants and animals), Quidditch (how many people get killed playing a contact sport in mid-air?) and the dangers of the castle itself.

My reading of this is that an element of Rowling's fantasy world is that the protagonists, wizarding childern, inhabit a higher-stakes and more-dangerous world than their mundane counterparts. Children are less coddled and more often exposed to thrilling and dangerous things in the course of their education.

quote:
(As I'm typing this post, my wife reminds me that she thinks Harry doesn't come off as heroic in the movie as he does in the book.)[/QB]

That's true, but I thought the movie came off the better for it. Rowling's Harry is too heroic for me. Radcliff's Harry is more scared, more hapless, and because of that, more exciting and scary to root for.

Plus, what about the dragon chase scene? Nowhere in the book, in the movie Harry basically takes the dragon on a airborne car chase and either knocks it out or kills it. Pretty heroic!


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 13 December 2005 04:07 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, but it was cooler in the book. The dragon was sitting on top of the egg and Harry had to carefully lure the beast into lunging at him giving him the split second he needed to dive for the prize. Admittedly, it would be harder to show visually than it was to explain in writing.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 December 2005 04:13 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sineed:
Many critics, most notably Stephen King, have taken her to task for her gross overuse of adverbs, some quite clunky (willingly, imploringly, snidely, ad nauseum). Stephen calculated that Order of the Phoenix would have been 100 pages shorter if she'd eliminated the adverbs.

You know you're in trouble when Stephen King is telling you your books are too damn long.

There is no corrolation between Rowling's skill as a novelist and her success. Like Dan Brown, she plots well -- that seems to be a key to success for many mega-blockbusters. Her characters are shallow, her descriptions are forgetable, and with each book her magical world becomes more and more like the real world, with magic substutiting for technology and becoming stunningly un-magical as a result.

That said, even a bad novel is hard to write. I haven't written one. Rowling's books are fun to read, her characters are fun to root for, her magical English boarding school is a memorable creation. I bless her imagination, and don't blame her for what is certainally not her fault -- the paucity of rewards in our society for great writers.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 13 December 2005 04:49 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You know you're in trouble when Stephen King is telling you your books are too damn long.

Ha! I was thinking the same thing.

You know, I could write a book of criticisms of Rowling and her writing. I agree completely about the often un-magical magic, which seems clunky and mechanical so much of the time, as well as the unfantastic fantasy world which just gets more and more like plain old Britain, but the fact is people like it. They like to see themselves reflected in these stories, and the follies and joys of their own world in Hogwarts school.

Rowling has fantastic storytelling instincts. Everything people love to read about is in these novels. The fish out of water, the weak good bravely facing the invincible evil, the hijinks of school chums and their rivals, and loads of crazy goofy magic that needs no logic and follows no rules. She wisely keeps piling the tragedy on Harry whenever you think he might catch a break, and while her characters may be shallow (though they've certainly sucked me into caring about them) they are vastly entertaining and with such wonderful names. Mad-Eye Moody, Delores Umbridge (god, I hated her), Professor Trelawney, the Dursleys.

Comparing again (unfairly, I would say) to the incomparable Ursula LeGuin, she has more depth and humanity in any one of her minor characters than Rowling could manage over seven books of development, but on the other hand, there is more manic zaniness in some of Rowling's characters than you could find in a whole novel of Leguin's. Again, they are great fun, despite all their shortcomings. I think they deserve their success. That someone like Ursula deserves even more success is another matter altogether.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 13 December 2005 12:22 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's hard to overestimate how much the Potter movies benefit from almost everyone having read and loved the books. Maybe going to see them if you've read them is like a kind of school reunion party: you get to go over the basic plot again and enjoy a kind of greatest hits sensation, but you don't expect or need the story to be all that strong because you've already experienced it. You might gripe about this or that detail in the planning, but you don't really mind. On the other hand -- and hopefully I'm not stretching the metaphor too far -- if you haven't read the books, the movies can be a bit like being a guest of someone else's school reunion: the night isn't meant for you, so your desire for a good party in its own right isn't the prime consideration.
From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 17 December 2005 03:00 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been talking to another HP fan, and he thinks the "magic" starts to leave the books by OotP. I think that's because HP is maturing and as he does so he's thrown into more "adult-type" situations. There's a hint of this already as he fumbles about trying to work up the nerve to talk to Cho Chang (I can remember what that was like in high school, only it was with certain guys. ).

But in OotP Voldemort's cranked up the action a notch and Dumbledore et al have to respond, especially without the backing of the Ministry of Magic.

There's still enough wacky zaniness particularly when you see the interactions of James, Remus and Sirius bantering among themselves thanks to that marvellous Pensieve.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
kiwi_chick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11388

posted 17 December 2005 04:22 PM      Profile for kiwi_chick        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That french chick in harry potter, wasn't she in that other movie topless. What was it called ?
From: ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 17 December 2005 05:12 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My wife and I have a tradition of playing hooky to go see movies we want to see on the Friday afternoon when they're released. English-language movies have a short life span here in Quebec City, so if you want don't want to hear Alan Rickman being dubbed into French ( ), you have to strike when the iron is hot.

The problem this time out was that this particular Friday was a pedogogical day. No problem; my mother-in-law doesn't mind covering for us (have I said how much I love my mother-in-law?). And to avoid the inevitable cries of 'we-want-to-come-too', we told the boys that we were going to 'run an errand'. Okay, yes: we're bad, selfish parents.

But it turned out that the ped day activity of our school's daycare was to go and see 'Chicken Little'. At the same cinema that Harry Potter was playing. We were so busted: a fifty-part chorus of "Hi Mr Gordon!" from our boys' friends greeted us as we went in to buy our tickets.

We enjoyed the movie, but we were more than a little concerned that there would be hell to pay on Monday when the boys learned that we had gone to the movies without them.

Happily, their friends' memories appear to be short: we didn't hear anything about it.

Whew!


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 June 2007 04:07 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's hilarious, Stephen. Good for you!

A new article about the new movie and the last book which was released on the 21st.

quote:
The secrecy surrounding the latest book in the Harry Potter series is such that J.K. Rowling hid the ending even from her husband until only recently.

"I think only J.K. Rowling's husband has recently found out what happens. I don't think anybody else knows," said Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe, speaking at a news conference at Claridge's Hotel in central London to promote the fifth film in the series, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. It opens July 11.

The film arrives on the doorstep of formidably titled Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the seventh – and final – book in the series.

The closely timed releases mean that, at this news conference anyway, questions dart from the film to the book and back again.


Has anyone read the book yet? Apparently two characters die in it.

I've only gotten to partway through the 4th book, and I didn't even get through the first movie, so I'm way behind.

I noticed in the article that it said that Rowling is worth more than the Queen now! Well, that's nice. She certainly earned her wealth a hell of a lot more than the Queen ever did, anyhow.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 25 June 2007 10:11 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
A new article about the new movie and the last book which was released on the 21st.
Correction: WILL be released on July 21 at 12:01 a.m. If it had been June 21, we would have heard a bit about it by now.

[ 25 June 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 25 June 2007 10:20 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I know that once it comes out, I'll be avoiding all forms of media until I've finished reading it.

[ 25 June 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 25 June 2007 11:10 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, when one of the books came out (Half Blood Prince?) some rancid turd of a human being came to babble and posted an innocuous-sounding thread title about HP, with a big spoiler and some mockery. (Ha, ha, ha! Ruined it for ya!) Rollicking fun that was, apparently, for the complete moron who did it.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 12 July 2007 03:38 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Spent the afternoon watching 'Order of the Phoenix'.

One thing I noticed - something that can't be a coincidence, given all the things that were dropped from the book - is the time they spent (at least three scenes) pointing out how powerful Ginny Weasley is when she waves her wand.

If you're only working from the *existing* books, it's hard to see why they'd spend time on this point. But if JK Rowling is involved in the screenplay, then this suggests to me that Ginny - and the fact that she is an especially powerful witch - will play a huge role in the last book.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 12 July 2007 04:46 PM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ginny's been special since book II, when she survived being possessed by You-Know-Who. And we've kept hearing about her powerful Bat Bogey hex, which she uses on older, better-trained wizards. And in Half-Blood Prince, she's invited to join the Slug Club on the strength of her magical talents alone. So yeah; Ginny's going to be important in the last book.

Though the biggest question is whether or not Snape really is evil.


From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 12 July 2007 05:51 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Emma Watson was on Letterman last night - looks nothing like the part she plays in HP. And, pretty down to earth, too - her idea of a nice summer is drifting down a creek on a raft with a pole, not far from her home.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 13 July 2007 01:12 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure if the relationship between Harry and Ginny can last. It seemed to much like a relationship of convenience that kind of popped out of nowhere in Half Blood Prince.

Anyways, LeGuin's books are very different. In the original Earthsea trilogy, the chapters are short, but you get a sense of the vastness of the Earthsea World from her terse descriptions that you don't get from Rowling. She's also right in that Harry Potter series is derivative of many obvious influences.

That being said, it's pretty good fun, and it's advantage lies in that is being enjoyed by a huge segment of mainstream readers.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 13 July 2007 03:07 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, the Harry-Ginny thing was planned from the beginning. Remember in COS when she had the big crush on Harry and couldn't even be in the same room with him? It did seem sudden, but that's just because of Rowling's limits as a writer.

For the same reason it's perfectly obvious that Snape is not bad. She was tryin to make it ambiguous, but she just doesn't have the subtlety to pull it off. But hey, the books are for kids, technically. There had to be clues that a child could decipher, even if they seem a tad ham-fisted to adults.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 16 July 2007 05:05 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm with Snape. He's the most interesting character in the books, and deliciously played by Alan Rickman on the screen.

Ginny really doesn't have much of a personality (compared to the rest of the Weasley boys and their oversized personalities).

Luna Lovegood is a fave as well. She's well played in the Order of the Phoenix.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 July 2007 09:12 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
Oh, the Harry-Ginny thing was planned from the beginning. Remember in COS when she had the big crush on Harry and couldn't even be in the same room with him? It did seem sudden, but that's just because of Rowling's limits as a writer.

I concur. JKR didn't build up to it well enough so it definitely seems to be sprung on the audience in HBP. Looking back and re-reading the books, you can see the little hints she was trying to drop.

quote:
For the same reason it's perfectly obvious that Snape is not bad. She was tryin to make it ambiguous, but she just doesn't have the subtlety to pull it off. But hey, the books are for kids, technically. There had to be clues that a child could decipher, even if they seem a tad ham-fisted to adults.

The clearest evidence of that is his odd behavior at the end of HBP, for sure. However, that having been said the man is still a misanthropic bastard and should never have been a teacher.

(PS, Jacob, you have a message from me)

[ 20 July 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca