View Full Version : Harry Potter -- 21st June

01-15-2003, 12:35 PM
I just found out the new Harry Potter book comes out on the 21st of June. How many Harry Potter fans do we have here?

By the way, to discuss more about it, go here (http://messageboard.cinescape.com/harrypotter/ubbthreads//postlist.php?Cat=&Board=UBB23&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=).

01-15-2003, 01:02 PM
I wouldn't call myself an obsessed fan or anything, though I do enjoy both the books and movies.

Oh, there are some passages available here: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/. Almost a 1000 pages long... How are the kids supposed to hold that thing? :)

01-15-2003, 02:36 PM
Eck...I abhor Harry Potter. It's a very avergae series of books, and there's no way it deserves all the attention it gets. There are many books more worthy of the accolades that Rowling's series receives. But I would say that; I'm a Pratchettarian.

01-15-2003, 03:31 PM
the movies are entertaining....but so silly

oh and i didnt get this one bit from the 2nd movie...

that train on that hidden station platform that they accessed through that wall...that harry and weasely didnt get into you know? okay that hidden station platform where the train to hogworths leaves, that's another dimension or something? Or its secret at least. Then how the heck can they fly there with their car? They catch up with the train without ever have going through that portal? doesnt make sense to me :|

Das Mole
01-15-2003, 09:06 PM
Yeah, I like the Harry Potter books and all, wasn't the fifth one supposed to come out around two or three years ago or something like that? And is Rowling trying to increase the book size by three hundred pages every time?

Anyway, I also found that part weird where they got to HOgwarts with the car. It's probably because Platform 9 3/4 doesn't take them to another dimension, but just to an obscure place only magic people know about. And nobody's ever found HOgwarts cause it's probably surrounded by some invisibility spell or something that only applies to Muggles, but it is still in the same dimension. And it's out in practically the middle of nowhere. That's my guess.

01-16-2003, 01:44 AM
I like the Harry Potter books. Books and nothing more. Haven't seen the second movie (which is supposed to be better than the first), though.

I do agree that the books are not so special. When I read The Sorcerer's Stone I found it had many similarities to Ender's Game.

01-16-2003, 09:32 PM
Harry Potter promotes the use of magic and narcotics

01-17-2003, 02:37 AM
Heh, we talked about this (harry potter on june 21) in my Public Relations class today, oddly.

01-17-2003, 05:21 AM
Feral Chicken, my thoughts exactly.

01-17-2003, 10:44 AM
What I find funny is that hating Harry Potter seems to be some kind of fashion statement now, especially seeing that most people that bash it hasn't even read the books.

01-17-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by RemiO
What I find funny is that hating Harry Potter seems to be some kind of fashion statement now, especially seeing that most people that bash it hasn't even read the books.

It's the same thing with Star Wars, really. It's fashionable to not like the movies.

01-17-2003, 12:28 PM
Yeah. And Blur and Oasis. I don't really understand it though.

01-17-2003, 12:40 PM
and Radiohead and everything else that's popular. If something is popular it doesn't mean the whole world is going to vigorously hump it.

I just think that Harry Potter is a very average book series and it doesn't deserve all the hype and acclaim it recieves. I'm not makine a fashion statement. I'm just stating my oppinion.

So eat cheese flavoured socks and die!

01-17-2003, 02:59 PM
Some people just like to conform to non-conformity. I used to do that, until I realised that that was just stupid.
I read the first 3 books and didn't see anything particularly special about them. I really couldn't be arsed with the fourth :D.
I like to maintain my record that I have never watched a Star Wars movie all the way through yet, and I shall break my record when I go to see Episode III once it comes out :).

01-17-2003, 05:00 PM
Amazon actually e-mailed me about this a few days ago, cos I signed up for a "tell me when Harry Potter 5 is out" thing. It turns out that if you pre-order it now you get it for half price, and its delivered on day of publishing. I have done this, 'cos Harry Potter books are ace.
I am also, like the Feral Chicken, a pratchetarian (well, discworldarian.) Different things entirely, so I can't compare them.

01-23-2003, 03:37 PM
I have only read the Goblet of Fire book, it is quite good, it makes me feel that I can see it in my head!

It was the first book that made me feel that way!

01-25-2003, 07:04 AM
What are you nine years old?

01-25-2003, 11:09 AM
I've read the first book and I thought it was awful. And the movie wasn't very interesting either (I didn't watch the last 30 minutes).
Rowling is not a very good writer. I much more prefer Pratchett. Harry Potter is nothing more than a trite childish story.

01-25-2003, 12:31 PM
Ditto. Pratchett = good. Harry Potter = spawn of satan.

01-25-2003, 02:35 PM
I tried reading one of those Discworld books. Didn't care much for it.

Anyway, I'm guessing you guys are, oooh, somewhere between 15-19 years old? Seems to be the age-span where people are very opinionated about... well, everything really, but the Potter books and LoTR seems to be the two fashionable things to either violently like or dislike right now.

Edit after reading profiles: Well whaddayaknow, I was right about my age guess!

01-25-2003, 03:46 PM
I dunno much about Harry Potter, I know my mum and my sister really enjoy them and I've seen both films. I thought the first was better because I was really confused by the second and didn't understand most of it until my mum explained it.

As for Remi's comment..
The LOTR books and films are extremely good, and there is very good reason to 'violently like' both; they are in no way 'just average' by any standards. Tolkien hasn't been 'fashionable' for the last 30 years, and the films won't really make it fashionable because his works appeal to a very small audience. I've been a great fan of Tolkien since I was 11, and I really haven't seen anyone become particularly obsessed with his works since the release of films. That said, most everyone that's the films say 'It's amazing! It's brilliant!', but that could possibly be because it is?

01-25-2003, 04:19 PM
"his works appeal to a very small audience" - ummm, hello? The triology has been a constant best seller in most countries. The movies based on his works both made more than $300 million in the US. How does that turn out to be something that "appeal to a very small audience"?

01-25-2003, 06:27 PM
'The Lord of the rings' is but an introduction to an introduction to his works. Yes, many people read through the lord of the rings, as that's a fairly easy read, but very few go on to read his deeper works, such as the the Silmarillon, or the Lost Tales, or Unfinished Tales, or other books in the History of Middle-Earth series. By 'his works' I mean his complete mythology, not just the Lord of the Rings, as that only hints at the bigger and more significant events in the world, only some of which are explained in part in the appendices.

And also, the films take a very liberal approach to the storyline, so to make the films appeal to a lot more people than the books, so there will be a great many people who enjoy the film and yet do not enjoy the books.

01-25-2003, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Oystein
I've read the first book and I thought it was awful. And the movie wasn't very interesting either (I didn't watch the last 30 minutes).
Rowling is not a very good writer. I much more prefer Pratchett. Harry Potter is nothing more than a trite childish story.

Although I'm not a massive fan of the books, I have read them all and will most proably read the fifth. I cannot see, how, having read the first book, you can say that Rowling is not a good writer. Her excellent use of figurative language helps even the least imaginitive of us to create a vivid picture of the characters and their surroundings. I do agree with you on your other points though. The film was terrible and I am not interested in seeing the second movie. The acting from the three central characters was nothing less than dire. I also much prefer Pratchett. And maybe Harry Potter is a childish story, but it's a well-written one.

01-26-2003, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by RemiO
I tried reading one of those Discworld books. Didn't care much for it.

Anyway, I'm guessing you guys are, oooh, somewhere between 15-19 years old? Seems to be the age-span where people are very opinionated about... well, everything really, but the Potter books and LoTR seems to be the two fashionable things to either violently like or dislike right now.

Edit after reading profiles: Well whaddayaknow, I was right about my age guess!

It's not about what's fashion to do or not to do, it's about my personal opinion. I dislike Harry Potter because that's how I feel about it, not because it's fashion to do so. As for Tolkien, I've read "The Hobbit" and I also tried to start on LOTR, but I only read 130 pages. "The Hobbit" = fun and enjoyable, 130 pages of LOTR = tiresome landscape descriptions. I don't have any special opinion on Tolkien, I think I've read too little of his works to actually say something clever about him. So there you have it. I hope you'll now refrain from such generalizing in the future.

01-26-2003, 12:24 PM
You should have read further. I have also read The Hobbit first. When I started LOTR I felt the same as you for the first few pages. But it does pick up after that.

Das Mole
01-26-2003, 12:46 PM
Yeah, the first movie sucked really bad. Their acting was completely terrible, and they lacked any knowledge of showing fake emotion.

However, I did see the second movie, and it was a lot better, it actually seemed like Harry could've been angry in a couple parts, unlike the first movie, where his anger was complete acting that nobody would ever believe was actual anger. The ending's a lot better too, which is weird because when I read the books, I liked the first ending better than the second one, but with the movies, i liked the second ending more the first one.

Fester- you should see the second one. The only annoying characters are Lockhart, Ron, Tom Riddle, and possibly Ginny. Other than that, it's not bad.

01-27-2003, 12:16 PM
And Dobby. Don't forget Dobby.

01-27-2003, 12:58 PM
Oh,don't wory, Remi, I'm not just being an arse; I went through that phase ages ago. I finished the Discworld series this summer, and, being awkward as ever, I read Colour of Magic (the 1st book out of 27) last.
Oh, and Remi, which Discworld book did you read? I know some of them aren't exactly great, particularly Colour of Magic, Equal Rites, Hogfather, Jingo, and Carpe Jugulum. They're still average at worst, though.

01-27-2003, 01:03 PM
Really? I really enjoyed the Hogfather.

01-27-2003, 01:08 PM
I liked all of them, however Small Gods (which Remi read) isnt so good. Actually that goes for 'pyramids' too.

01-27-2003, 01:09 PM
I believe it was called 'Small Gods' - though mr. bennyboy seems to say it's crap, it was recommended to me by some Discworld fan. I think it's just that those kinds of books generally don't appeal to me.

01-27-2003, 01:18 PM
I enjoyed Hogfather too, although I'm not especially fond of the Susan character. I also enjoyed Colour of Magic, but that's probably because it was the first Discworld book I read. I agree though, that Equal Rites isn't the best Terry has written. My favourite book so far, haven't read them all yet, is Soul Music or Guards! Guards!

I've heard only good things about Small Gods. Is it really that bad?

01-27-2003, 01:42 PM
I also enjoyed Small Gods, but I wouldn't recommend someone to start on it.
And I did enjoy Hogfather, but only the second time round. I disliked it fervently the first time.

01-27-2003, 05:05 PM
I got into Discworld only very recently, about 3 years ago. I loved the first two (Colour of Magic / Light Fantastic) with Rincewind, mostly 'cos I knew the character from the games. I have since bought many of the books, but haven't read through even half of them yet. They're just there, when I need them.

Harry Potter is also a new thing for me, I got the books last christmas, so I've had them just over a year. Say what you will, the books are well written and very enjoyable. This isn't just a fad, like the Teenage Mutant Turtles and Buzz Lightyear - these books will be read for years and years to come, maybe even turning up on GCSE english syllabuses.

As for Tolkien - I read the Hobbit when I was 7 or 8, after getting fed up of Enid Blyton stories. I then started on Lord of the Rings, but tuned out at the Council of Elrond. To be honest, the only reason I got that far is because I wanted to meet Gollum again. I decided to try it again about 6 months before the first movie came out, and I thouroughly enjoyed it.

I do like Science Fiction, though. I haven't read any Douglas Adams (shame on me) but I'm a huge Red Dwarf fan. The series of Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers, Better than Life and Backwards is one of the best stories ever written, and I usually read through the whole three books at least once a year.

01-27-2003, 07:10 PM
Harry Potter was in last years General Studies exam, which was quite fun.

I'm not a huge Potter fan, but the books are very enjoyable, and Rowling is an excellent writer. Harry Potter has no personality though, the books are a little samey, and the first movie wasn't worth the leg-cramp or the popcorn.

As for The Lord of the Rings - I don't rate it too highly. It's extremely descriptive, but there is such a thing as overkill in places. Still, this only makes it more enjoyable the second time round. As for the Silmarillion, well, that's basically just "The Bible". Meaning that it's boring as hell.

The movies, however, weren't all that great. The sheer look, direction, production and casting (The Fellowships characters were brilliant) was let down by a shoddy script and overacting, I thought - In the second one, anyway. I think I'm the only one who enjoyed the first one more - maybe because I wasn't developing deep vein thrombosis the last time I watched the 'Fellowship'. I though 'The Two Towers' got a little tedious towards the middle, and certain parts did annoy me (Such as Aragorn dreaming of Arwen - Was that really necessary? And Gollums character was all wrong) although it did revive itself with Helms Deep, which was fun. I hear there's a Counter-Strike map of it.

I enjoyed Rowlings work more than Pratchetts, even though the Discworld series is still definetely worth a go (Although from what I've read, it's been hit and miss). My current favourite is 'Sourcery', and I have a copy of 'Guards Guards' waiting to be opened. 'The Colour of Magic' and 'Equal Rites' were both dull.

I'm almost finished reading the "His Dark Materials" trilogy - supposedly a childs book, but that's probably only because it doesn't contain obscenities and smut. I recommend Mr Pullmans books to all, they are more 'Lord of the Rings' than they are 'Harry Potter', although any comparisons are stupid.

I've also read the Red Dwarf books, Lucastones, and have ordered the second series on DVD (Although it picks up at the third). The books were okay, but the TV series is better. I don't care about scientific inaccuracies, or people claiming it to be a rip off of "Hitchikers..." (Which is also brilliant, although I am yet to pick up the novel).

I'll stop typing now. My fingers are tired.

01-28-2003, 05:12 PM
I'm actually really pleased at how well those Red Dwarf dvd's are being made. I have the first three series in a box-set on vhs, but they've been desecrated by the BBC digital labs in an aparant rip off of the THX re-mastering technique. They haven't actually re-mastered anything, they've just replaced the models with CGI and put the electric guitar version of the opening theme on instead of the brilliant old bassy one.

For that reason alone, I decided to purchase the first series again on the dvd, and the amount of extras and the quality of the overall package has convinced me that the other 2 series that I already own will be purchased again as well. The extras are actually different for each series, and the cast commentary is an absolute gem. Its at series four (the one where the ship suddenly becomes white instead of grey) where I'll be purchasing dvd's of episodes I don't already have on vhs, so hopefully that won't be too long before its released.

I know they've made the cover-art for the first three series on dvd, so I can only hope that the series 4-8 will be released. I know they exist, because they were all released in Japan at the same time to satisfy demand, but how long will the UK versions take to be released??

And of course, the movie. I wonder when that'll eventually start filming. Its been in pre-production for ages, and the official site isn't much help.

01-29-2003, 01:33 PM
Yes, I agree, Red Dwarf has been giving excellent DVD treatment, although I generally hate commentary. Those little pop-up snippets of information, on the Back to the Future DVDs are better.

It's a shame that the Japanese get it before us though. Which is strange, because the UK gets all the American shows on DVD before the US - Futurama, Family Guy, Buffy - even Star Trek, I think.

Still, lets hope the BBC keep churning out quality DVDs - And Fox should keep making DVDs too. I'm addicted to them.

01-30-2003, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by spoon_man
What are you nine years old?

Not at all, i'm 13 years old. So I would back off if I were you, otherwise I will report you to a moderator.

01-30-2003, 10:05 AM

01-30-2003, 10:14 AM
Consider yourself reported spoon_man you naughty person you.

01-31-2003, 12:55 AM
Egad! I feel so violated! *gets down on knees and crys at the feet of Bgbennyboy* Please!! Pleeaase!

In all honesty I'm just angry at how iliterate the world has become.