Astrotoy7 Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior .....And I'm not saying you have to have read ALL of them, I'm saying you have to have read at least the first one. ... which me has done Sire ! I read it, mainly on a plane coz i was so freakin bored.... But, after putting it down, I thought its a great book for kids, but nothing more. I feel quite differently about Narnia, which is rife with symbolism, and even the 'Alice' books, where Lewis Carroll proved that it is possible to write a kids book,a treatise on bridge, as well as commentate on a chess match, all at the same time mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Rythe Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Originally posted by Pie™ shut up. I just googled it for fecks sacke I know that hippogriffs are a mix between a eagle and a horse... That's weird, Where does the Hippo part come form? And a griffan is lion and horse, how the hell did they come up with hippogriff? @ Bongo: The following statement is rated R for Retarded. Doesn't that just show you are a sad little computer nerd, just the people forums like this are looking for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 which me has done Sire ! I read it, mainly on a plane coz i was so freakin bored.... But, after putting it down, I thought its a great book for kids, but nothing more. I feel quite differently about Narnia, which is rife with symbolism, and even the 'Alice' books, where Lewis Carroll proved that it is possible to write a kids book,a treatise on bridge, as well as commentate on a chess match, all at the same time mtfbwya You do know that Alice in wonderland was about his acid trips, pedophiliac gangbangs and fantasies right? Yeah, I had a traumatic time after I watched the movie Me I prefer good old fashion star wars books and books about Wizards, and midgets with swords and fuzzy feet, and little english children who go to this magical land. >_> And on occasion I fancy myself a Tom Clancy book. *coughs* NETFORCE*coughs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Originally posted by Darth Rythe That's weird, Where does the Hippo part come form? And a griffan is lion and horse, how the hell did they come up with hippogriff? Hippo means horse in Greek thus, Hippo + Griffin = Hippogriff. Horses and Griffins were mortal enemies according to myths, thus it was an impossibility. just look here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivy Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Originally posted by Darth Rythe That's weird, Where does the Hippo part come form? And a griffan is lion and horse, how the hell did they come up with hippogriff? hippopotamus means 'river-horse' so i guess the 'hippo' part must mean 'horse' as the hippogriff is half horse and half griffin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 I'd probably give it a 7 1/2 or 8 out of 10. I liked it, but it didn't blow me away. It kind of felt like they rushed through it a bit too much, without giving enough time or emphasis to certain parts. Like an abridged version or something. I like the books, and have read them, but i should point out that i went with a housemate who hasn't read them and she really enjoyed it. I loved the first film. I wasn't so keen on the second (felt too slow in places, and too quick in others). But then I always thought the second book was by far the weakest in the series. I did find the changes in locations a bit strange and confusing, not too bad, but completely pointless, so why do it. Harry & friends dressing in jeans seemed a bit odd at first, but it makes sense so i don't mind. Malfoy was a bit underpowered, and it felt like they needed to introduce his father as a bad guy. THey also seed to miss out the emphasis on snape vs harry's father/lupin/black etc.. and on hogsmeade, the old shack, hagrid and his classes and the dispair of harry being stuck in school. But i guess that as the books get bigger and bigger it is going to get harder and harder to fit everything into a reasonable length film. So, good but not great, better than the second, but worse than the first. A bit harry-potter-lite. But worth watching. PS/ Totoro Rules! Even though HP was quite good, totoro was a much better choice. PPS/ I always imagined Sirius as a bigger, shaggier fellow. Like oliver reed when he was younger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivy Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Originally posted by toms i guess that as the books get bigger and bigger it is going to get harder and harder to fit everything into a reasonable length film. exactly, the first book is the shortest (223 pages) and therefore was alot more filmable. the second one was a bit longer (251 pages) the third book is quite a bit longer (317 pages) 100 pages of content they had to either cut or rush through. now the next one is double POA (686) how the hell are they going to fit that into just over 2 hours? then there's another 100 pages more in book 5! personally i think they should make the next ones about 4 hours, but split them into two (like kill bill). And they should release the second half about a month after the first. then with the dvd they can still just release it as one. they wouldn't have to cut ouot so much or race through it and they would be better films IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 I really doubt the kiddies would be happy about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivy Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 screw the kiddies!! er.. not literally >.> <.< *runs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith You do know that Alice in wonderland was about his acid trips, pedophiliac gangbangs and fantasies right? acid trips yes, I dunno where you got that other bit from, Alice was his niece for cripes sake ! please link if you are referring to verified historical information, not just crap some obscure academic is sprouting to draw attention to himself..... mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Wow. Someone's really moody about Harry Potter eh ET. You're a good guy and all, but damn. It isn't that important. You/we aren't special just cause we read the frickin books. I was worried about them wearing normal clothes, but I came to remember that they are human. And they don't wear robes and stuff the entire time. Clothes other than wizard robes and hats give them a means of deeper character personifying. I like the look of this new HP. It's deeper, darker, grittier. No longer just a children's fantasy book. The first one sucked. The character development was important in that one, but it was almost nowhere to be found, and was quite a bore. The second one was much better. *goes off to read Animal Farm again for its symbolism* BTW: Before you bash me, I have read all 5 HP books, and I am rereading the 5th right now. And I like some EU books. I agree with Ty. Get off your high horse man.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 Originally posted by Mike Windu I like the look of this new HP. It's deeper, darker, grittier. Darker? There really wasn't anything in this movie that made me think it was darker than either of the first two. The second movie was WAY darker than this one. This one seemed like all the director wanted was to make people laugh. It wasn't deeper either, it didn't utilize any character development atall. Clothes other than wizard robes and hats give them a means of deeper character personifying. ....I didn't feel like them wearing normal clothes did anything EXCEPT make them seem less like kids learning to be badass wizards, and more like average kids cavorting around. but I came to remember that they are human. And they don't wear robes and stuff the entire time. Well of course Harry and Hermoine don't wear robes during holidays, they live with muggles when they're not at Hogwarts. However I'll wager that Ron ALWAYS wears robes, as you'll remember in the Goblet of Fire when they're traveling to the Quidditch World Cup they all have to dress like Muggles, and Ron's family has a hard time of it, because they're always dressed like wizards. In wizard robes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 So what you're telling me is that they wear wizard robes. Period. No undies. No pants. No shirts. Just a robe? Come on ET... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 What I am telling you is that wizards don't wear muggle clothes. Plain and simple, it's spelled out for you in the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 HP is for kiddies, I'm sticking with good ol' original LOTR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow_Nest Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Thats what my friend also watched and and said it suxed, but i also agree that their biggest mistake was to change the director. Anyway, im still going to watch it this saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivy Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior What I am telling you is that wizards don't wear muggle clothes. Plain and simple, it's spelled out for you in the books. the older wizards always wear robes, yes. thats why they have trouble disguising themselves as muggles. its like in real life, imagine your grandfather trying to look cool... it wouldn't work because they haven't the slightest idea of what cool is. they're from a generation of wearing 'uniforms' and casual clothes for them are polyester suits but just because the older wizards don't wear muggle clothes doesn't mean the kids don't. the whole point of harry & co wearing muggle clothes is because, like every other kid in this generation, they are getting to the age where they want to look cool. being wizards doesn't stop them from being teenagers. they no longer want to wear their uniform robes out of class and they no longer want to wear mrs weasley's knitted jumpers. just because JK Rowling didn't write .. ' and then harry changed into his jeans' doesn't mean they were always wearing their robes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mex Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 I've only read one Harry Potter book, which I didn't like. I've never seen any of the movies so I don't really give two turds about Harry. I also haven't watched LotR or read the books! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Originally posted by Pal™ I've only read one Harry Potter book, which I didn't like. I've never seen any of the movies so I don't really give two turds about Harry. I also haven't watched LotR or read the books! Well, then, you suck many times over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Originally posted by IG-64 Well, then, you suck many times over. hey IG, no need to be harsh to Pal....he's still young. at age 14, which I think he is, I never even would have contemplated reading a book as long as LOTR ! and as far as the movies go, imagine all the great times he has ahead when he sits and watches the triple EE set and at least he's watched at all the SW movies......well, I hope he has, otherwise we should lynch the lil bugger !!!! j/k mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 it was a bit pointless him posting in this thread though, wasn't it. I kind of assumed they changed into normal clothes occasionally when ut of school. I never immagined them all wearing robes while running around the weasley's garden or going to paddington station. I guess it depends on how you immagined it when you read it. Didn't bother me much though. I WAS confused by all the reviews calling it darker... it didn't seem any darker to me, infact i might even agree about the second one being darker. It rushed through everythign at such a pace that there was never really any time for an aura of menace to appear. (Which reminds me... they didn't really do much to hype up the fear of Sirrius Black being escaped, i thought everyone in wizard society was terrified int he book. Maybe i'm mixing my books up. It would have been nice if they had had him escape from his pictures... especailly given the hologram posters in the cinemas) The kids were starting to look pretty old. I can't see them being around much longer. I really don't understand why they don't do a LOTR and film the next few books all at once. It was a big financial gamble with LOTR, but with a surefire hit like HP it would savce money and allow them to keep the kids young and catch up with the books. The danger is that by the time they get to film book 5 all the kids will have got fed up with HP and moved onto something else................. t PS/ Read His Dark Materials.. starts slow, but is even better than HP. (can't see that hollywood could make a film of it though, given conservative american attitudes...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mex Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Originally posted by IG-64 Well, then, you suck many times over. No I'm just not "Nerdy" enough to sit there for hours reading a boring book about a boy, who has a lightning bolt on his head, and about how these crappy wizards say a load of tardsmack when they're gonna do spells. And why the heck would you think I suck just because I don't watch a movie about dwarfs some 500 year old things and a walking tree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Originally posted by Pal™ And why the heck would you think I suck just because I don't watch a movie about dwarfs some 500 year old things and a walking tree? Because your ignoring the fact that it is a masterpiece and I think you would thoroughly enjoy it but are too ignorant to watch or read it so are missing out on a brilliant world of fantasy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Originally posted by wassup HP is for kiddies, I'm sticking with good ol' original LOTR. thats right...one was written by a professor, the other by a jail skank..... [intense cynicism]now which one is more likely to be a finer piece of literature...hmmm?[intense cynicism] mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 thats right...one was written by a professor, the other by a jail skank..... [intense cynicism]now which one is more likely to be a finer piece of literature...hmmm?[intense cynicism] mtfbwya I didn't know she is a jail skank :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.