Slashdot Mirror
Review: Harry Potter
I'm a latecomer to the Harry Potter phenomenon. A few friends recommended the books to me, but it wasn't until the local town of Zeeland, Michigan decided to push to have the book banned from school libraries and local book stores that I decided I had to read it. I read the first book and was just amazed. Here was a story that was fun, easy to read, had involving characters and a simply wonderful imagination. Quite simply, "The Hype" was warranted. In this era of the Internet, and playstations and old fashioned TV, this was just the book to get kids reading again. Hell, this was just the book to get me reading again. My schedule doesn't give me much free time to enjoy a book, but I made time, and read the first 3 Harry Potter books on my next 3 flights (I'm saving the 4th book for next time I fly ;) I don't read much. But I'm glad I read these books. They were great.
Of course by this time, the movie was already under construction so I kept a stray eyeball on it to see what would come of it. I wept when I heard Chris Columbus was directing (Home Alone? Mrs. Doubtfire? Stab me please). Why not Terry Gilliam? I thought he would have been perfect, except that I have no clue if the man could direct swarms of kids. Columbus could. And I'm glad to say that he did.
I won't belabor the plot. You know already unless you live in a coffin that Harry Potter is the witch hero brought from the world of Muggles to his true destiny at Hogwarts, a traditional English boarding school ... for witches. He meets up with a variety of friends including the giant Hagrid, the little-miss-perfect Hermione, the Headmaster Dumbledore, his best friend Ron. He also meets some bad guys, Professor Snape (played by Alan Rickman, who I always dig), Draco Malfoy. If you've read the book, you know the characters. If you haven't, you either don't care, or haven't been paying attention to every AOL Time Warner media outlet which has been relentless hyping the film for weeks.
The story is simply epic. Orphan Boy learns of true powers. Boy goes to train to master his powers. Boy fights monsters, comes face to face with true evil, and defeats it. Think Star Wars, but with broom sports instead of x-wing battles.
The kids are dead on. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are almost exactly what I'd expect. They are convincing actors and do an excellent job. And they actually act. Not like Phantom Menace where Jake Lloyd brings every scene featuring his dialog to a crashing halt with his wooden delivery, or The 6th Sense's Haley Joel Osment who just has to make that look at the camera half the time and this is somehow interpreted as being a great child actor. The grownups are good too. Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid is really excellent. Likewise the Dursley's are spot on. I would have liked to get a bit more of the teachers. Especially Dumbledore and Snape, but this is the story of the kids, not the grown-ups.
Since this is a special FX blockbuster kind of movie, I'll go into it a bit. The look of the whole movie is dazzling. The casting is right on the money. The architecture is skewed and bent, just like it should be. Hogwarts itself is dark, but the grounds are beautiful and colorful. Everybody visualizes books differently, but I gotta say they did a fine job creating a convincing world for our magical trio to get into mischief.
Many of the effects are subtle and seemlessly integrated. Keep an eye on the paintings and watch them move in the background. Where the effects really collapse is the people during action sequences. The troll battle. Kids falling off brooms. They cut back and forth between real kids and CGI kids. And the CG kids just don't cut it. They just look wooden and their skin has no flesh texture to it. Most of the shots are short, but at least for me they really pulled me out of the fun. Especially during the Quiditch match. I wanted to cheer and be excited, and certainly the seen as a whole was brilliant. But every couple shots it would be so obvious that the child on the broom was animated that I kept having the illusion spoiled. I kept thinking I was watching a Playstation 2 cut sequence instead of a feature film.
What got sacrificed from the book to make this a 2:30 movie? Well not much. The biggest thing is the details in classes. The books love to have little anecdotal stories in classes that often tie together at the end. A spell. Some child doing something that seems irrelevant, but later matters. But the kids are almost never shown in class. But thats ok. Things also seemed a little more slapsticky, but I guess Mr Home Alone couldn't pass up on that. And I'll forgive him. This is a kids movie. A few sub plots are axed. Many plots are narrowed down (notably the dragon sub plot which is reduced to one short scene)
In short, this the best for-all-ages movie I've seen since perhaps Toy Story 2. And I'll be there opening night for The Chamber of Secrets too.
...
Starring Ron Jeremy!
"I am a warrior, and information is my weapon..."
I have come to the conclusion that Commander Taco is a 12 year old boy trapped in the body of one high-ranking mexican cuisine.
i got dragged to the theater at 12:01am Friday morning by my girlfriend. They did an awesome job at the special effects and who they selected as actors.
but the story was slow to develop, IMO. I actually fell asleep for about a half hour of the movie and when I woke up, the only stuff I had mised was the introduction of peoples names, and the plot hadnt been intro'd yet. so it felt like i didnt miss anything. i think maybe the reason i fell asleep is because i havent read teh books.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
As someone who works with high school kids, I am glad for Harry Potter for one reason - they are getting kids to read.
I suppose I sound really old, but it seems that with television, video games and others, reading is not as important as it used to be.
Harry Potter got kids who had not read a book on their own in years to actually read something.
I read the first two books (I refuse to buy the third and fourth in hardback), and they are a good read. Not the best ever (I have a difficult time comparing Ender's Game with Harry Potter), but a good read.
I would recommend that everyone read them, even if you pick them up from a library. Get to know what your kids are reading. We talk about watching kids while they are online. The same should go for what they read.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
(nt)=no text
He's right about the books and the movie. I just wish the kid target demographic hadn't limited the length of the movie so. Another half hour would have done wonders. Oh well, maybe a "director's cut".
1Alpha7
Live to be Moderated
Because Terry Gilliam has imagination and originality.
The publisher and/or the studio wanted the film of the book to be a word-for-word replica.
---
http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml
*cough* Pod Racing *cough*. Those sequences in SW:E1:TPM looked so cartoony and game-like that it couldn't have been an accident. I wonder if there's something of the same going on in HP:TPS (The Philospher's Stone, damn it). "Don't make it look too good, it'll just make the game spins off look like a pile of pants, and that's where the big bucks are."
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I might be wrong, but I believe the term "Witch" is reserved for the female variety. I always thought "Warlock" was the male reference.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
The problem with all book to movie/tv translations atleast for me has been they .. well suck
the point of reading a book is YOU get to imagine the characters, with only the guide lines of how the author has described them being your limitations, YOU get to imagine the settings. Book to Movies dont often translate and perhaps its just me, but i dont think Lord of the rings will either
(specially with elijah wood if that is how you spell his name: the Hobbit is meant to be a plump little red rosey grin fellow, not some skinny small prettyboy. Maybe im too cynical)
Microsoft IIS is to webserving as KFC is to healthy eating
did anyone else see dave letterman wednesday night? The kid who played harry was on, but I was too busy on other things to pay attention. but the djs on the radio the next morning were saying he was completely nervous and everything. anyone else see it? what was he like up there?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
So was it Danny Radcliffe's voice or not?
I should have a funnny sig here...
I'm surprised CmdrTaco saw fit to put down Haley Joel Osment's acting skills up there. I mean, did you see AI? That kid *is* a great actor.
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
I saw it last weekend at the previews in the local UCI.
Having being a HP fan, I thought the film would have ruined the book's feel. Yes, it did leave out subplots, including many that could have made the film's plot clearer to the HP virgin, but what they did leave in was great!
One point of mention - Quidditch.
The flying seemed to be very "Missy-Eliot-esque" in terms of movement, and it didn't quite fit into the film's plot as seemlessly as it does in the books. It has the feel of being put in as the obligatory "High Action Fast Paced Exciting Bit" as an afterthought, but it could have been placed into the film better than it did.
I am the breaker of Chairs!
But until Harry Potter is on your completed reading list, it is impossible to truly understand. While maybe they are not the best written books ever, there is something else about them that takes children into this magical world, and then can take adults back to being children. I urge everyone, if its your thing or not, to try reading these books, and then the movie will really be impressive.
I shoulda known better.
Stoopid mod-head.
It's just like starwars. One kid who is discovering the world, with funny and strange friends, in a strange place.
The huge difference are the technologies. Here you miss a bit of magique not flying soccers, only flying brooms.
------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
It was an ok movie, IMHO.
But god damn, I'm getting sick of all the merchandising crap. A friend and I were walking down a store and we saw a "Harry Potter Magic Wand". You want to know what it was? A fake plastic treestick. It was curved and bent to represent something you'd pull off a treebranch, except it was plastic. God, thats thick.
Yep. It was a shame that we only saw one of the Quidditch matches in the book. They also had to miss out a fair chunk near the beginning, with the extremes Uncle Vernon goes to to get away from the letters.
(I'm saving the 4th book for next time I fly ;)
Hope you're flying around the world.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
Does anybody know why they changed the name (of both the book and movie) for the U.S.? Did they dub the movie as well to change the name of the stone?
I'm just curious because I can't imagine why they would go to so much trouble to eliminate the word "philosopher".
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
I have to say that this was dead-on. My favorite scenes in the book were always in the dining hall, and this was a perfect hit there.
I had fears going in that the movie would contrast with my mind's eye perspective, but they were unjustified. This really was a great film - definitely recommend.
... that's all i wrote...
Harry Potsmoker must have take to many hits from the bong.
This movie is likely going to be the first successfully designed DVD movie. The theatrical release, by nature, is assured success from the start which allows for ample planning to release a vastly expanded version on DVD.
Not just deleted scenes, but fully composed add-ons that needed to be deleted to bring the film within a reasonable length for theater goers.
I hope to see this used more. Many adaptations fail due to the 2-2.5 hour length the average movie goers will endure at a cinema. DVD and what ever replaces it allow directoers to utilize their immediate resources to film full adaptations/stories that can have all the backstory added later to fully realize their vision of the story.
I admit, I have no concrete knowledge on HP, but given the trim and the quality that Columbas (surprisingly) pulled off here, I'm confident the DVD will be excellent.
This came out a little while ago but is worth a click:
Harry Potter Sparks Rise in Satanism Among Children"
I read on my local paper that the scriptwriter wasn't expecting a lot of people to the movie because it was a european style movie, not much action. He really said that didn't get all the pub about a european style movie. Figure the surprise of the guy the next few weeks!
------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
The one reason I wont see the movie is i doubt it has those "adult jokes" like all of Pixar's movies have. You know, the sruff for the older crowd in the movie, thew stuff that flies over the kid's head.
Well, I certainly hope that you snuck into the theater to avoid paying money to the eeeeeeevil Warner Bros. I'd hate to see your money going to the ongoing hassles from the MPAA.
The most amazing thing about the Harry Potter phenomenon to me is the burst of censorship associated with it. This thing is just a plain good old children's fantasy and the fundamentalist Christians down South where I live have just gone rabid about it. If you believe in the First Amendment, then you've got to fight for kids to have the right to see / read Harry Potter. Check out this website for more on the Harry / censorship angle...
I substituted in a 7th grade classroom yesterday. I thought it would be interesting to ask them about Harry Potter.
The results surprised me. Only 4 or 5 of 27 were planning to see the movie this weekend, and only 3 or 4 more expressed any interest in ever seeing it.
I'm guessing its been over-hyped, so that cool twelve-year-olds are no longer interested.
It's the box office I'm worrried about!
tcd004
I knew that Harry Potter was a phenomenon. After all, the author was on Oprah.
Heck, the NY Times changed the criteria for its bestseller list because Harry was creaming the competition.
but...
Until a friend gave Goblet of Fire to my teenaged daughter, I didn't realize that Harry Potter was a PHENOMENON!
She now has 1-4 on her shelf with the Harry Potter bookends and assorted other Potterabilia.
She has made sure that even an uncool old muggle like Dad has a vague comprehension of the sorting hat.
And...
We are all excited about my mother coming up for a visit this week.
Why?
She'll babysit the little ones while Teenager and the two old fogies she lives with go to see the movie.
Guess it could be worse.
The littlest one likes TeleTubbies.
I went to a screening last night, and although my friends who hadn't read the book came out with completely enthusiastic reviews, I was somewhat disappointed.
The writers did an incredible job sticking to the true story - but maybe they did too much. The characters were fantastic (especially the kids), but I knew exactly what each child was going to do from minute one. The problem is that I never got completely engaged - there wasn't any mystery or spontaneity to the story. Now some people would support a movie true to its book, but I need some other compelling reasons to see a movie.
The CGI was pretty awful for the entirety of the movie. But watching the character portrayals made this movie worth my money. Everyone from Harry's awful aunt and uncle, to the other kids at Hogwarts, to the teachers was done magnificently. And a couple of those really surprising, frightful moments were nice (but I think younger kids would be quite scared).
My final suggestion: If you haven't read the books or seen the movie, put your money into reading the books! They are truly fabulous, and your imagination will create a more engaging and wondrous story than any director can portray. Now if that doesn't convince you, fine, go see the movie, you'll like it, you'll laugh, it's a fine time.
And if you have read the books, I don't know. You can pay to see the movie, but don't expect incredible things. I found myself thinking about other things during the movie (like how hot my feet were) because I was expecting everything. It's still fun, and good acting is always a nice change.
Final unrelated note: The new Star Wars trailer was AWFUL. Scooby Doo trailer was hilarious.
I credit Roald Dahl for inspiring me to read this book. The similarities between Rowling's and Dahl's style is undeniable, but I commend Rowling for her own magic.
100% Insightful
We don't really know; he's never been given the chance. Anyone who knocks his performance in Star Wars should first be required to do a convincing "Yippee!" themselves...
After reading the books, and then watching the movie last night, one major flaw made itself apparent. The movie shifts scenes too quickly. You can never settle down and simply enjoy all the little subtleties that made the books great. This goes on for 2:20, so it became a problem for me.
I do realize, however, that this is because of the very fact the movie is based off a book. They *had* to remain faithful to the story and at the same time keep a child's attention for that length of time. These two goals together contradict the ability to go indepth into character development or a particular plot scene. For example, I wanted Draco's goons to come out of the woodwork, and not just sit there and look dumb as they did in the movie.
All in all though, I enjoyed the movie. I wonder when the second one is due to be released. For some reason, I bet that this series will eventually become as big as "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", or even perhaps "Wizard of OZ".
i'm probably going to get modded down as an off-topic or something for this, but here goes...
i think my main concerns with the harry potter phenomenon are based around the comments that the books have got kids reading again. i think this is a fantastic thing, i think that the more kids get into reading the better and i highly applaud the books for that!
but. the concerns i have are that the making of the books into feature films, and possibly more specifically, into a forthcoming computer game, are undoing all the good work. the books are dragging kids away from computers (and to a lesser extent movie theatres) and towards reading books. but are the computer game(s) just going to undo all that work?
does it not strike anyone else as strange, that everyone books applauded for getting kids reading again, rather than playing computer games and staring at films, are themselves being made into computer games and films?
and as far as the films are concerned, there are apparently going to be seven books in the series (we've had four so far), i'm worried that soon kids will see the films, and wait for the films of the future books, rather than read them. why read and use your imagination, when you can just wait for some film director to do all that for you?
of course, another concern is J K Rowling's apparent indifference too all the merchandising, and marketting and so on, films, computer games, toys, etc, etc. i bet she's loving the royalties... apparently she's already nicknamed
J K Rowling-in-Money here in the uk.
just my 2p. flame away...
" I thought Star Wars had freaky fans."
We *MAY* be freaky...but we're orginized...
NYLine.org
SWNYC
One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all,
and in the darkness bind them
Someone you trust is one of us.
It's been impossible to avoid the hype on this film.
I did manage to completely avoid the hype on this film, until some bozo wrote an article about it on Slashdot.
Main Entry: hack.er
Pronunciation: 'ha-k&r
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : one that hacks
2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity
3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system
If you avoid idiotic media, it's easy to avoid the hype on idiotic films. Except that slashdot now joins the hype. Does AOL/Time Warner/CNN own OSDN yet?
Warlock is etymologically "oath breaker" implying one who broke his holy oaths to God to make pacts with demons for unnatural power. As such it's considered offensive. References to "good warlocks" are rare, and essentially self-contradictory.
Witch, on the other hand, comes etymologically from wikken, meaning "to predict". So, despite any negative connotations that have grown on it, it was salvagable. References to "good witches" are common, and the word connotes strangeness, but not necessarily evil.
Witch has only gradually changed to referring primarily to women, most likely because women have been accused of witchcraft far more often than men. While most men went out into the world each day to work, women often stayed in the home and worked in secret, where they had no responsible witnesses and were naturally vulnerable to accusations of private crime (it should be noted that the vast majority of accusers were historically also women; witchburning was largely a woman-on-woman crime).
The gender-neutral applicability of witch has weakened, but never gone entirely away. Consider "witch doctor." Do you picture a man or woman?
Fantasy literature is particularly prone to using (and in some cases reviving) archaic meanings and choosing etymologically appropriate words rather than the most standard and well-understood words. So are fruitcakes who like to play at old religions. Don't try to apply normal language standards to either, it's frustrating and pointless.
http://unicornjelly.com/alt49.html
It seems to me that this movie has been dumbed down for an American audience.
And to be quite honest, I could not understand about 40% of what people were saying because of their thick English accents. Would captions have been so difficult to produce ?
Also, It is a bit disturbing that adequacy.org beat you to it with this one. Come on slashdot editors, try to keep up!!!.
See, everyone out side the US has been complaining for years about how you give us all your culture (guns/violence etc..) so we have decided to pay you back. Harry Potter is actually subliminal messaging forcing your young to speak like they do in public schools and wear uniforms and carry wands into school BA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAA...
:) down with RIAA, down with MPAA down with ..errrr.. CIA.
I thought the film was ok, ish, should have been produced by the british instead of those AOL/Time Warner Capitalist Pigs(tm)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Do the English think that Americans are too stupid to understand what a Philosopher is ?
... it isn't a stone that happens to be owned by a philosopher.
No, it's because the English think that Americans are too stupid to understand what the Philosopher's Stone is.
Hint
---
http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml
Another half hour would have done wonders
Total agreement. Another half-hour would have made it perfect. Though I do know adults who though it was too long (mainly for bladder-related reasons).
My advice: Pee just before seeing this film.
HH
__
So, one day, she gets a phone call from this horribly irate parent who claims to have a newspaper article detailing the link between Harry Potter and a rise in Satanism among children...
24-Oct-2001; the day I metamodded 10 decent comments that had all been modded Off Topic, Flamebait or Troll.
This sometimes happens, but remember that karma whores post comments that look decent but actually are not. Moderators who moderate karma whores down, get punished by meta-moderation.
HH
--
The casting was almost dead-on as to how I envisioned it... With ONE exception.
McGonagall is not supposed to be an old lady (see the books!). I had envisioned someone who looked kind of like Bebe Neuwirth in full Lilith Sternin mode.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
... at avoiding the hype. I think the only recent instance of getting Harry Potter in my face was having him fly around on my screen when I visited buy.com - now THAT'S targeted advertising!
Crap like this is generally easy to avoid - just stay away from other crap.
sic transit gloria mundi
Hey this is really hot! People quickly entered 100 comments in half an hour. It is a good sign that the kids are connecting with their old folks.
Good job parents! Keep listenning to the kids!!
------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
I wonder if the Sept 11 events have thrown some people off so much that they no longer see magic where they would have seen it before.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
A newt?!?
....I got better...
Burn 'er anyway!
Sorry, couldn't resist!
You're using her as bait, Master!
- Left out the sorting hat song
- Norbert plot all but missing
- quidich and house cup minimized
- Hargred missing his accent
- Most inclass elements left out
- Snape charictor flat as a pancake
- Fred and George who?
there are lots of others but these element I feel were a lot of what made this book great and there absents from the movie a huge disapointmentJFMILLER
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
Jokes are by their nature off topic. If it isn't funny then it shouldn't be rated up.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
...that's one great book. Thanks for reminding me of it!
.sigs are for people who write short comments
I've got some reading for you.
I read all four books and liked them. I did not think they were earth-shattering, but they were good, especially the fourth book.
I decided to go opening day just to get caught up in it. Trying to avoid children, I decided on the 1:30pm showing, before school got out. As it turns out, it was a 1:20 showing, so I arrived halfway through the previews.
There were about fiftenn people in the theatre, including two children. One of the kids sat right behind me. He must have been about five, but acted very well the entire time, better than a lot of adults I have sat in front of.
The movie was good. I would say that it was better than Mosters, Inc., which I saw last weekend.
The major problems I had with it was that it did not seem to "flow" very well. This, I think, is a result of my next complaint - the movie seemed to follow the book too closely. It is difficult to floow a book that closely when the books, as with most any books, involve a lot of characters thinking to themselves.
One good example was the Sorting Hat. In the book, Harry and the hat have an internal dialog. In the movie, this conversation takes place aloud, and completely changes the idea of it.
I was impressed at how closely came, image-wise, to my thoughts on what everything looked like. Hagrid's cabin was almost dead-on, as was the Gryffindor commons room could not have been more exact to the image in my head.
I also did not like the toning down of a lot of the adult characters. Dumbledore was apparently re-written as a very minor character, despite the role he plays in the book.
In all, I was impressed with the movie and will probably end up buying it on DVD. One of the better movies made this year, but, given the competition, that does not mean much.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
it's strange, that books applauded for getting kids reading again, rather than playing computer games and staring at films, are themselves being made into computer games and films?
It's been impossible to avoid the hype on this film. Even if you avoid TV, the whole web has been bursting with bits, ranging from eBay to CNN.com.
/. post. Of course, not actually living in the US can be a handicap. Or blessing, now that I think about it from the media hype-standpoint.
Funny, I didn't see any hype for this movie. I didn't even know it existed until the
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
Hunter S. Thompson and Oscar Ascosta running around in an drug frenzy trashing Vegas hotel rooms to Harry Potter and Hogwarts. That would be a rather broad recent career arc for Mr. Gilliam wouldn't it? Though I suppose whatshisname of LoTR fame (Pete Jackson?) did 'Meet the Feebles' so I suppose its not without preceedent that directors can do both very 'ugly' works and mass marketable blockbuster fantasy style material. However if Jackson did upleasant works it was more to do a self parodying exploitation type film - there really wasn't much creative or thought provoking in that movie, it was just the new path down exploitation film making that you probably weren't expecting.
I think there is maybe the impression that because Gilliam did well known 'fantasy' films like Munchausen and Time Bandits that he is a superb fantasist. However despite those accomplishments I think the type of movies he tends to gravitate towards are generally too dark and unsettling and overly cerebral to be commercial grade fantasy. Though he nearly exclusively deals with fantastic subjects the flow of his movies generally don't follow an escapist mold at all, rather they tend to dwell on the absurdity of escapism and the plots tend emphasis how unromantic and far from the 'fantastic' mold actual life can be. For instance, look at how much trouble he went to showing how arbitrary and upoetic most of the deaths in Time Bandits were, and Munchausen only stayed afloat by constantly emphasising its own absurdity and the complete unreality of the events it described - the fact that the story of Munchausen was not real but nonetheless emotionally appealing was one of the main thrusts of that movie. In fact in every one of his films it is the psychology of fantasy and how it is used to get along in life rather than an exploration of the actually fantastic that is of primary thematic importance. Most of Gilliam's work is more about dealing with the fact that people's dreams and fantastic notions are by nature almost always contrary to what will actually happen in their lives rather than just reiterating the rather trite stereotypes of escapism. There is a reason that Brazil is considered his cornerstone work, and its not because his baroque visual style was first fully realized in a movie with that film, rather it was because the movie was about the nightmare of being psychologically dependant on fantasy that will never come true.
So I agree that Gilliam would not be a good director for this film any more than he would be a good director for Star Wars and LoTR even though Harry Potter is a little more self consciously surrealistic in nature. The simple fact is that Gilliam does not do fantasy for its own sake, rather what he does tends to usually gravitates more towards drama where the primary tension resides in the disparity between character's fantastic notions and the more unromantic situations of their actual lives.
i honestly I think if there was a major director who would be good on this project it would be Tim Burton. He is much adept at doing atmospheric fantasy while staying much more true to mainstream entertainment values than Gilliam.
-K
I've seen the flick: I agree with Taco, it was pretty damned good. I've read the first three books, and and 3/4 of the way through the 4th. I see no mention of Satan or Satanism, but do see the occaisional mention of the Dark Arts, against which Defense is taught. It's a classic good-guys versus bad guys bit: these anti-Potter funadmentalist have really gone out on the edge.
Hypothesis: Harry Potter gets kids reading things other than the Bible and Christian-with-a-Capital-C approved books, the sort of thing that Landover Baptist parodies. . .except these people aren't joking. It allows kids to free up their minds and imaginations, and has kids actually ENJOYING themselves. . . and we can't have that, can we ? Having dealt with some of these yahoos, it's amazing what they consider logical and what they consider proof. . . this is often the same gang that talks about "Evil-ution". . . .
Ekrout mentioned the good thing about the Harry Potter books getting kids to read. I agree.
As someone who grew up on reading Heinlin's books,
the "Well of Souls" series, Steven King, Enders Game and "Arcade" (I think that was the title) an even Hose Farmer (good sci fi but hard to follow at times and waaay to involved occasionally).
My son did not just read them, he devoured them.
When hearing about the movie coming out (a few months ago) he asked what to do until then.
Read the books again, I suggested. He did.
Heck, I've read the Stand three times, The Once and Future King maybe 4 (never finished the last chapter first 3 times).
So, as Ed Asner used to say from waaay back when:
RIF, reading is fundamental.
Gah! I hate showing my age like that.
I can see in the future conversations with fellow geeks. "how old are you", they ask. "Old enough to know not to answer that and older than Unix", I'll probably say. "Sorry to hear that", will be the reply.
Ah, well, off to check the movie listings...
If it is not on fire, it is a software problem.
It's funny that CmdrTaco loves bashing large corporations in his posts all the time, but doesn't he think twice about promoting a movie made by one of those same corporations. It's hyprocracy at it's worst, Mr. Malda.
Time to start "putting your money where your mouth is", and start boycotting movies made my companies that use things the DMCA and patent laws to make a profit. Nobody will take you seriously, otherwise. Sure, it means no Harry Potter or XBOX games for you, but at least you're making a statement that counts.
Christopher Walken as Professor Lupin. It'll never happen, but it would've been cool.
Its amazing how true to english life it is - my school was _exactly_ like that... we even drank potions and smoked special herbs if you know what im saying. And there was plenty of mounting of [broom] sticks in the girls house. Not to mention f*cking tw*t games and competitions that know-one could give a crap aboot... and the bio lab had this three-headed goldfish> :)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
sig semper tyrannis!
Do the English think that Americans are too stupid to understand what a Philosopher is ?
Well, someone did. Since the English don't have a hive mind, I think the answer is probably yes in some cases, no in others.
And to be quite honest, I could not understand about 40% of what people were saying because of their thick English accents.
English? I'm sure there were at least a couple of Scots in there.
Would captions have been so difficult to produce
No. We just decided that Americans weren't etupid enouh to need them.
I saw Harry Potter last night. I'm really glad I read the books before I saw the movie because I would have understood *nothing* in the movie. This is definately a film pitched at the fans who have read all four books. If you've read the books, your brain fills in the missing parts of the movie to make sense of the whole thing. If not, you're left wondering what all the hoopla was about.
By the way, you might want to wait a few days to see the movie. I sat next to a couple of random girls who spent the entire movie squealing at everything that came on the screen. It was as if the movie wasn't a movie, but a series of visuals to aid the book for them. And, yes, it was just a little annoying.
From the review: "I wanted to cheer and be excited, and certainly the seen as a whole was brilliant."
Did you mean: "I wanted to cheer and be excited, and certainly the scene as a whole was brilliant."
Or did you mean: "I wanted to cheer and be excited, and certainly, seen as a whole, it was brilliant."
Please, Comander Taco, tell us what you meant to say.
First off, after reading the books and watching the film, I would have to give the movie an overall rating of C+. Just slightly above average, and that's only due to the portrayal of Professor Snape by Alan Rickman. I admit, I went to the movie with a small degree of expectation, and I left feeling slightly disappointed:
The kids are dead on. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are almost exactly what I'd expect.I seriously disagree with CmdrTaco on this point. Harry is not Harry at all. In the movie, as pointed out by a few others, Harry is a re-actor. Something happens, and Harry responds. In the book, Harry has initiative. Though they tried portraying this in the film, I felt they failed. Ron was a lot like the character I would expect, and Hermione had a lot less screentime than I thought was necessary for her character. The movie made her out to be like some kind of token geek girl ( ala Willow and Fred ) and not an important character.
And then there was the disjointed nature of the movie. It felt more like an incorrectly done highlight of Harry Potter's 1st year:
Norbert got only, like, one minute of screentime and then mysteriously vanishes. In the book, at least, the sub-plot regarding Norbert included an introduction with Charlie Weasley via mail, which kind of lent the atmosphere of how widespread, and networked, wizards and witches are.
The "traps" set to guard the Sorceror's Stone were not done right, but, for those that haven't seen the movie, I won't spoil it for you. I'm not complaining about CG; I just figured that there were some relevant details about the cooperative nature of the traps that made the overall plot of the film weak.
And where was Peeves?!
Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing Professor Sprout, either. While not an entirely important character, it does relate to the traps comment I make above.
As noted above, the movie is, severely, disjointed. Instead of having smooth transitions, A->B->C, then X->Y->Z, it felt more like A->B, C->D, get to X->Y and then Z.
For those that read the books and then watch the film, you aren't wasting your money ... but, like most movie adaptations, I felt it fell short. For those that haven't read the books and want to see the movie first, you'll probably enjoy it but be left with enough questions that you may have wanted to read the books first.
I wonder if Taco has seen the size of the 4th book? All I can say is I hope its a very long flight. Rumours are that the 5th book come complete with a wheel barrow and the 6th with a shopping cart.
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security
/golfclap publishers
... it would be science.
And given that, in this series, magic IS reliable and repeatable (and thus is really a science and its asscoiated technology), the rest of the story becomes:
- Child from broken home is abused.
- Child escapes from broken home through institutional opportunity for children like him to enter higher learning institution.
- Child enrolls in a "science/technology" degree program, in a "science" for which he has a talent (and which is thus fun).
- Child grows up, learning about good and evil, human relations, etc., making friends (and enemies) and having a good time along the way.
- Child breaks rules (as adolescents must do at least once), getting in an appropriate amount of trouble and finding an appropriate amount of opportunity as a result.
- Child learns more family history.
- Child and friends solve serious adult-world problem.
- Child and friends make progress exposing and combatting the plans of evil/psychopathic persons.
etc.
Substitute "science" for "magic", and the whole thing turns into a real-world growing-up success story, with lots of useful lessons about attitudes and behaviors useful for achieving success, morals, and social standing. But using the technology of magic allows the young reader to easily transfer these lessons to the real-world without the distraction of technical particulars from the author's understanding of a PARTICULAR technology's CURRENT state-of-the-art.
Meanwhile it's a very fun read, keeping the reader engaged and encouraged to continue.
So in addition to teaching kids to read, this series seems likely to teach a lot of good stuff, all the while making it LOADS of fun (as learning SHOULD be).
I'm glad to hear it made it to the silver screen with its guts intact.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Does it have a 'supernatural' connotation in the UK? I havn't been able to figure this out either, but my best guess is that the word 'philosopher' dosn't mean anything magical here.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
What the hell does that have to do with a review of a movie? It mentions that it's been released, and then goes on with mindless claptrap about religion. Doesn't seem quite the same as what Taco's talking about. Ugh... adequacy drops yet another point in the respect department.
Most of these idiots have been drawn to witchcraft and other New Age idiocy because they're stupid. They get comfort in imagining that "mastering magic" and having "secret knowledge" somehow compensates for their inability to learn true knowledge like Science.
Every time some of these idiots confronts me by saying that natural sciences are way behind the "ancient knowledge of the wicca" I feel the uncontrollable urge to smash their face in.
Witches have more or less to do with "magic". Things floating, weird effects, and almost shamanistic in rituals etc. Wizards are more like scholars and they usually control the elements such as fire (merlin usually seen with this), ice, and others.
Yesterday a coworker went to www.netscape.com to check the news. Right there on the home page, a GIANT Harry Potter ad came sliding down from the top of the window and covered 75% or so of the screen real estate. Clicking on the close button made it slide back away.
And you thought Pop-ups and pop-unders were bad...
Mark my words: this is going to be the next wave in annoying advertisements.
What bugs me the most is that you'd pretty much have to be living under a rock to not know about the movie coming out. Yes, hype is hype and Harry Potter has had more than the usual, but this just seems excessive.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I've only read the first one so far, and I did enjoy it very much. I would say that it is in the same class as The Hobbit, but I still don't understand the hype. Is the rest of child-oriented literature really so bad that Harry Potter and the Philosophers' Stone seems godlike by comparison?
I love the way they had to change the original British name, "The Philospher's Stone" which the rest of the world has to problem with, to "The Sorcerer's Stone" in the US, my American friend prounces philospher as three words... fill, osh, ferrr.
Hrm... ok.
I did. My advice: Pee first...and don't get the big drink.
I just started reading the first book of Harry Potter (hey, 50% off at borders...) and I'm enjoying it..
but the hype of the books still doesn't grab me. I remember as a kid reading the Chronicles of Narnia and that was my favorite book series by far at the time.
Of course, later on I read Tolkiens books and fell in love with them as well..
Personally I think Tolkien's books and the Narnia Chronicles far superior books compared to Harry Potter...
Aliens? Magnetic Rings?! Bah! Who needs that when we have
Ok, I haven't read the Harry Potter book, mainly because back in '98 J.K. Rowling said she didn't want them to create a marketing monster, and now the revenues from the movie and spin-off products is estimated to bring in $700 million USD in profits. But what I would really like to see turned into a series of movies would be Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books. You'd have to shoot it in a manner similar to Lord of the Rings (i.e. all in 2 continuous year), but it would be truly epic.
"THANK YOU HARRY POTTER BOOKS! I wuz a danged eeeelliterate fool until a buuk about witchcraft and demons and such came a-long. Now I am a makin' big bucks as a NASA sciuntist."
Honestly, if I can't believe I hear parents saying that they have a problem with their kids on the internet reading and typing. Information non-stop from various unique viewpoints and places is wrse than a book? Wow. Then they slap themselves on the back for handing them a fun book. Yes, give them a book, reading is better than that evil, illiterate, thought-provoking internet. Please get a clue parents. Books are great. The internet is great too. I personally love both of them. But books are getting a little nostalgic for modern kids, when they can interact now.
The internet is one BIG BOOK that talks back to you.
To be on the net, you have to read constantly. Think and interact. Type. Most book people love the net. Its a beautiful thing. We are all reading right now, discussing, and this is our pastime. Wow. Think about that. I love books too. Before a computer network came along, reading was in a pile WAY OVER THERE . The common man now has a keyboard out 24/7. A typewriter used to be stored in a case in the closet, so you could use it for Christmas cards and official documents. After all, my parents used carbon paper. Typing was something your secretary did.
WE NEED A SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE. I am 27. When I was in high school in the late 80's/early 90's, there were typing classes. Probably still are. It was a learned skill... people were ACTUALLY INTIMIDATED by a keyboard. People sought out typing as a class to be placed on a resume. How many people do you think are now intimidated by a typewriter now? It is now basic to children. They have E-mail accounts now. If they have to type a lot, betcha they have to read. Kids are doing a lot of typing and a lot of reading. It is REALLLY GETTTING BETTER, not worse. They are reading a lot more EVERYWHERE. That makes them smarter.
Don't get me wrong. I LOVE BOOKS. I read a lot. But the fear that your kids are not going to read and end up as dumbasses is a hilarious parenting fear. Ridiculous fear. My mother told me that she used to read the Encyclopedias when she was bored. I did too. Kids practiaclly educate themselves. The computer is more than just a big set of encyclopedias. They are begging to learn. Harry Potter books didn't change that.
The last time I checked, my parents were better educated than my grandparents, and I am better educated than my parents. Does everyone see a pattern here?
I know I am going out on a limb, but a good childrens book series is not going to save all of our kids from barbarism and illiteracy. It isn't going to happen now anyway. We are so heading away from barbarism that it is funny to see parents freak out over one series of books. I personally love to see them humilitate their kids in front of news cameras with those silly outfits. JUST LET THEM BE KIDS! Don't put some giant spin on it.
THANK YOU HARRY POTTER! You saved society.
heh, wait till LOTR hits the theatres.
_then_ you'll see freaky fans.
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
I think it's far more likely that the American marketing department of Time Warner et al thought that Americans wouldn't recognize the Philosopher's Stone. One thing top-tier marketers in America never do is overestimate the intelligence and knowledge of their audience...
I love all of the "adult" casting indignation on the finer points of these books...go out and read something written for adults, and judge those works accordingly.
Anti-gone? That would be here?
All this litterary snobbery is ridiculous. If you don't like the prose then don't read books that were written for twelve years olds.
Equally a film aimed at the pre-teen audience is not going to have the action adventure impact of 'die-hard', 'Rambo' or 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'.
I suspect that more than a little of the carping is being organized by the Religious right. They have realised that they look silly attacking Potter as being 'Satanist', so they are organizing people to call into talk shows to dis Potter.
One of the ways you can tell this is going on is that the same phrases keep being used, 'Thin and Hollow' turns up on one of their 'talking points' sheets, I have heard it repeated on three separate chat shows. Then they plug some piece of 'christian' propaganda (which most christians would not recognize as such).
Of course Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell haveto do something with their time after the used the WTC attacks for gay bashing. It would be nice if they had the guts to do this sort of thing in the open rather than using an astro-turf campaign.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
That said, the movie was a very good visual imagining of the books; it serves, more than anything, as an illustrated guide to Harry Potter. If you already know all the characters, and understand the action, then it's very entertaining to see it all acted out. All of the casting choices were excellent, and the visuals were wonderful (excepting maybe the Dark Forest; I've been in darker forests than that). The three things I missed most: "I'd like to say a few words. And here they are: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak! Thank you", Peeves the Poltergeist, and the logic puzzle with the potions that Hermione solved.
"A witty saying proves nothing." --Voltaire
I supose Mr. Aznar (Spanish Prime Minister) is very happy with WB's decision... since he is one of nazi people that have been trying to destroy Catalonia since Sep 11th, 1714.
Not quiditch.
Anyway...
Living in Glasgow, I couldn't help but think of the quiddich match as between Partick Thistle and Celtic. (Maybe this was no coincidence considering the stubstantial Scottish influcence (at least from the actors) of the film).
Thank goodness Thistle won.
Re: The Scorcer's Stone. I noticed that in one of the books that the children were using to research the stone it was actually written "The Philospher's Stone". This shot was only seen for a second or so. I wonder if there was a different book was used for the American version?
I saw the Potter movie last night as well -- it had a great psuedo-trailer for Monsters, Inc., in which Mike and Sully (John Goodman and Billy Crystal) are playing charades. It's rather cute, and at the end, the screen displays:
"Monsters Inc."
"Now playing in a theater near you."
"REALLY near you."
"Maybe, like, right next door."
In AOL-TW, there are millions of people who think that AOL is the internet and have no idea that it is censored. I'm not aware of AOL's policies on posting, but it troubles me to know that they have and do censor posts that are not to AOL-TW's benefit as far as movie promotion goes and who knows what else. I think that the number of users and information presented should either be without censor or have a big disclaimer stating "These messages have been censored by AOL-TW. Any negative comments/posts about any AOL-TW products have been deleted." I find this would still be unacceptable considering the user base. And after all it is America On Line, how American is it to not offer a First Amendment right!
Try going here.
you get a link to Amazon, trying to sell you books!
If I posted a criticism on www.harrypottersux.com or www.harrypottersucks.com (both of which are allready taken and under construction, btw) that would be bad and naughty, but Amazon has completely derailed this address and as far as I can tell (from Icanns website) no-one has raised a peep.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Explains why when it comes commenting on things other then computers he sounds a bit out of place.
why'd this get modded down?
No self respecting wizard (male witch, warlock, whatever, thats a seperate line of discussion) rides on a broomstick.
The brooms that witchs were said to ride on were meant to be seen as phallic symboles originaly. That is why no self respecting wizard rides on one. Unless he's gay, and while I have nothing against homosexuals, a supposed school of magic that teachs its underaged male students to ride around on giant phallic symboles is just. . . . wrong. Period.
Any halfway decent wizard/warlock/etc uses a CARPET DAMNET USE A FRIGGIN MAGIC CARPET. Or learn how to fly like a _REAL_ Man and don't use any of those wussy ass tools at all.
Alternativly, magic boots, capes, hats, shirts, belt buckles, ring, braclets, necklaces, neckties, and so forth, all work quite well for imbuing with magical flight spells.
Not to mention that Raistlin could KICK harry potter's ass even when Raistlin was just potter's age.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
I saw it here in Sacramento, California and I didn't see one single cloak, magic wand, cape, pointy hat, or owl in the entire theatre. There was a loooong line before the movie started, but once everybody got in and got a seat we could see that there were still plenty of seats available. I mean *plenty* of seats. This was a 10:20pm showing on opening night...
My girlfriend absolutely loved every second of it. I have not read the books yet, so while the story was interesting, it did seem to drag on quite a bit.
I did like the "chessboard as a gate" bit near the end, tho...
Which is more evil, telling someone they'll burn in hell, and being fairly narrow minded and biggoted in your religion, or practicing a religion whose members are generally accepting of other religions, and strive to honor and respect the earth and fellow humans?
Ok children, can we say "Gihad"?
Sorry folks, I know it's off topic but I had to make a point. HP is a very entertaining movie, but lets not get fantasy confused with real wicca here.
commie
Thanks to the Harry Potter movie millions of children will now answer the question of, "What did Christopher Columbus discover?", with an answer of "The Harry Potter Movie".
Thanks Hollywood.
A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
now this is an example of a funny joke.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I was avoiding just fine until you posted a /. story on it, biotch.
What a fucking chump, "It's been impossible to avoid the hype on this film". You *are* hyping it freak!
"The AOL Time Warner conglomerate demands that you watch this movie"
and they have willing accomplices...
and souldn't be modded as such
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
practicing a religion whose members are generally accepting of other religions, and strive to honor and respect the earth and fellow humans?
Wicca was recently invented to reject and mock Christianity. It is not accepting of other religions, most Wiccans are derisive and actively subversive of other religions.
Honoring and respecting the earth is meaningless silliness. What is "the earth" and which bits of it are worthy of honor and respect? Apparently the way they honor and respect fellow humans is to turn against the accumulated knowledge of science and replace it with mystic sham and fresh-pressed superstition, offending athiests, agnostics, and members of other religions alike while harming those who trust them with false remedies.
Wicca is one of those oddball 20th century social organizations based on saying one thing and doing the exact opposite, much like communism.
There is no "real wicca," just fantasy.
And what the fuck is a Gihad? Did you mean jihad?
We just came from the movie. I was not bad! they stuck as close to the book as they could without making it a 5 hour feature. as always a book is better than a movie, but they did really well.
my complements.
Fluffy (the giant three-headed dog) was quite fuzzy, typical of bad special effects. The background and arena of the Quidditch match was not well-done (though the Quidditch players themselves were great). The troll was terrible - Shrek-style animation in a live-action movie? Bad move. It's kinda strange - it looks as if part of the was done by a team that didn't have anywhere near as much experience as stuff done in the rest of the movie. Makes me wonder...
Am I the only one who liked the movie, but hated the climactic scene? I felt the physical conflict that finished out the scene was much more dramatic in the book; the movie version was just wretched.
I hope that was an improvised line...
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Who gives a hoot about Harry Potter. I love to see the capitlism machine at work.
Comments about comments about jokes being offtopic are offtopic as well. And comments about comments about comments about jokes being offtopic are offtopic as well.
I would agree thatvery little of what she is doing is new, but she has repackaged a boarding school story (been around since Tom Brown's Schooldays)in way that people like it now. The characterisation is great, and kids now really like it.
It isn't just a craze because I know one kid who had no prior exposure until she was given the book to read when she was 15. She was definitely out of the usual crazes as she had just arrived from Russia and was waiting to start school (so no friends yet). She loved the book and read all four in quick succession - in English.
Forget the cult, the HP books are well written. They are not high literature, but they are fun and they carry some interesting (and seditious)messages.
See my journal, I write things there
I had very little interest in seeing the movie, I still don't have much... and after this review, maybe when it comes out on video, or hits tv... maybe, if there's nothing else on. Then I caught what these whackos are saying about it, particularly the interview (currently on their frontpage or tv) I had to watch while waiting to get my car fixed this morning. The best part is probably the bit at the end where he claims Tolkein and Lewis were both "Christian fantasy" authors. And the part that tells parents to explain to their kids that "they understand" how it feels to not be able to see the film, and that they should "give the child something they've always wanted, a gift or a vacation" instead. Oh, and don't forget to check out "Pat's Age-Defying Antioxidants" while you're there.
Try Vegas. If you want a movie that will keep adults and children interested based on plot, try Harry Potter.
One of the interesting things I noticed was that during the movie, the kids in the theatre (most likley outnumbering the adults) were really quiet, no yelling or squirming! And I really didn't notice any adults looking bored either.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Umm...Book 4 is awesome, but I'd like to see you read that 730+ page book on one flight.
Also how could they cut down the baby dragon (Norbert) scene down? It was a pretty important plot device.
That sums up my feelings about the movie. I've sort of been looking forward to it -- what geek, of any age, can fail to identify with a disrespected little boy who has the sole power to defeat he-who-must-not-be-named? But I'm not sure I want to see a CGI Quiddich match, or Fluffy reduced to some Disney-Henson-IL&M puppet.
And how much HP can we take? I just read the third book (recently out in paperback) and it seems to me that premise is already beginning to wear thin. I have to wonder if the magic can hold together for 4 more volumes, not to mention endless tie ins, adaptions and spin-offs.
Sometimes you wish your favorite entertainment was a little less successful. I remember when I thought a beagle with aviator fantasies was funny, when Dilbert actually had something to say, and Star Trek actually took me out of myself. Much as I miss C&H, I wish more creators would emulate Bill Watterson and quit while the concept is still fun.
Oh well, at least the movie is something people can do with their kids.
I've preface this with the fact that movies have to cut out plot. For instance, instead of having the dragon Norber hatching out of an egg and then later mentioning "oh, Dumbledore sent it to Romania" is stupid. I wouldn't be surprised if they had the rest of that the plot shot but cut it out. Instead they just should have cut it out completely. In general, there seemed to be too many half-baked plots like that and replace them with some the ancedotes in class. For instance, we never really got to hate Snape.
Overall, if you havn't read the book then the characters are going to be undeveloped. Of course, who hasn't read the book - maybe this movie should be seen as a "book companion".
The time constraints and the fact that it is hard to translate "and Harry thought..." into a movie are the two big adaptions for a movie.
Good movie, good books. It's just too bad she had to steal the characters from a previous series by an American author. The first book was published in 1984 called "Legend of Rah and the Muggles". It's kind of hard to believe that Rowling had no idea about the previous books when you compare them.
Rowling's Names: Harry Potter, Muggles, Lily Potter, Neville, Nimbus 2000, Keeper of the Keys.
Stouffer's Names: Larry Potter, Muggles, Lilly Potter, Nevils, Nimbus, Keeper of the Gardens.
Hmm.... looks very similar. Maybe adding or deleting letters, changing spelling, etc. does not constitute plagarism in the U.K., but in American schools, we were taught that that is a big no no. But, the fact that Rowling has no moral or ethical bone in her body, doesn't mean her books aren't fascinating reading. They are.
"Tom Brown's School Days" is the title of the book i think he is referring to. Hey, just trying to be helpful :)
Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
Search the review for the word wizard. Didn't find any matches?
Why is this a problem?
Harry Potter is a wizard, not a witch.
-Justin
Thousands of people have died recently in the worst terrorist attacks of recorded history, and we're now involved in a war against Islam during the holy month of Ramadan, and you people have the gall to discuss Harry Potter movies? My *god* people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!
/. Just look at the news marked under the 'US' category. I think it's good that we're discussing something different for a change. /. is not just for politics: it is for geeks. Get that through your head.
We have been discussing the terrorist attacks many many times on
harrypotterthemovie.com, unlike various *sucks.com sites, is good for the company it is infringing upon. Why would AOL Time Warner put up any objections to Amazon taking that site to sell Harry Potter books and movies (though they may not like the book part too much, the two medias do feed each other)? Unless they asked permission (which is entirly possible) it is something ICANN would get mad about, but because AOL Time Warner is not going to bring charges they won't.
Remember Beanie Babies? Or Pogs? Or Magic Cards? Or Cabbage Patch Kids? Or any of hundreds of other things that became a huge fad for a about half a year, made their creators multimillionaires, and then disappeared? I hate it when companies "demand" that everybody waste their money on something. Especially when it's AOLTW.
Fads suck. Harry Potter is a fad. Therefore, Harry Potter sucks.
By the way, there are other things that SUCK as well. One example is Burger King. I HATE all fast food chains. They don't produce food. They produce garbage and dare to call it food. I had some food at a Burger King today and got sick. I'm not making this up either--I'm totally serious about this. Good thing I didn't eat their damn fries. So, like I said, Burger King SUCKS, and so do all the fast food chains.
So now we have tens of millions of English-speaking kids learning the incorrect usage of a perfectly good word.
It seems to me an author of children's books should at least get the language right. I've heard that J.K. refuses to have a copy editor. If so, a lot of English teachers and students are going to pay the price for her lack of humility.
Just get the 2 liter cup, you mean? I guess you're right, I had a hard time finishing the 20 gallon "Bucket 'o Value" last time.
It's friggin' Annie again. isn't it...
-Elendale
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
Has anyone else noticed that CGI (SFX, not animation like Shrek) has been getting worse since Jurrasic Park? The brachiasaurus eating the tree at the very beginning is still the best CGI effect I've seen. The Matrix was very nice, but after watching it a few times, you notice wierdities, like the bouncing door in the lobby. I see more problems with TPM every time I watch it, and of course, Mummy 2 had stuff I could have outdone with 20 minuites on Blender. I still haven't found any strange things in the CGI in JP, and I've watched it more times than I can count. That might be because there wasn't as much CGI, but after 8 years, I'd think they'd be able to at least match it.
I hope your only choices of nightlife in the future are Pagan singles bars (be they real Pagans or the motorcycle gang). The herd doth needeth thinning.
As a side note, I am NOT even CLOSE to a right-wing extremist so don't even TRY to rope me into that category.
Wouldn't dream of it *snicker*.
".sig,
firstly it is quidditch, you were very, very close this time :). i thought the movie completely followed the spirit of the book, if not the letter (a few things here and there, otherwise very, very much like the book). of course the plot is pretty straightforward (it is meant for 11 year olds, after all) but all in all a fun little book and a fun little movie.
but basically it just whet my appetite for 'the fellowship of the ring' and kept my hopes up for future harry potter movies, as the books got more complex and interesting above the 11 year old level after the first one.
-sam
burn the computers. go back to the abacus.
Somewhat offtopic, but didn't OSC say that the reason he was having a lot of trouble getting Ender's Game made into a movie was partly the lack of child actors? While there were not very many in Potter, there were more than usual (i.e. 6th Sense w/ just Osment). Any ideas on the impact this will have?
Harry Potter Books Spark Rise in Satanism among children
Metamuscle.com - News in the Iro
didnt read the books too well did you?
He's a wizard not a witch, and the entire bookline and world is as far from wicca as you could get.
Geeks have a freak-storm when people say hackers are crashing the internet....
well, A good fantasy lover will cringe when people try and stick their world into the light that causes fundamentalists to freak, band and burn books....
It's a wizard dammit, the harry potter world is very much like D&D and we didnt have no stupid witches...
keep your religion out of my fantasy entertainment.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
There is no escape.
A few humbly-submitted links for supplementary reading:
Harry Potter Premieres, Becomes Soul-Sucking Eddy of Ubiquity
"Hairy Potter" Adult Film Franchise Already on 7th Sequel
Yes, Harry Potter has some weird fans. I was out there with a bunch of them, robes, pointy hats and all. We convinced a local theater to let us promote our SF club by raffling off a gift basket of Harry Potter stuff in their lobby on opening night. It was a great ice breaker. I met some wonderful people who I might never known otherwise, including one of the elves who runs the FictionAlley Harry Potter fanfic site.
We'll be doing something similar for the Lord of the Rings opening night next month. I'm just glad that getting a job, owning a house and having kids didn't mean that I forgot how much fun it can be to just throw myself into doing something weird. I laughed, I talked, I posed with my friends for a news crew. It was fun. Go ahead and be weird. There's a good chance you'll make some friends, or put a smile on a kid's face.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
from a fan page,
It was widely reported that the first "draft" of the movie came in at 4+ hours long. Dave created an online petition for fans to sign. At issue? Dave wants Warner Bros. and Christopher Columbus to know we fans want a director's cut Harry Potter DVD. 4 hours.
The petition
How long is the movie for the fourth book going to be? The Sorcerer's Stone was only 2 or 3 hundred pages if I remember correctly, and the fourth book is over 700 pages. Will we see a five hour movie? Maybe they'll have to split it into two parts? Any ideas?
If Terry Gilliam had directed the film, I would have avoided it like the plague (my mate and I are going to see it next weekend).
Why? Simple enough. Terry Gilliam does a fine job of directing except for one fatal flaw: The endings of his films all stink! In "Time Bandits," the kid's parents get blown away, and the film ends. In "Nightmare Before Christmas," the FX and animation were wonderful -- but the ending left me with the feeling that I'd been ripped off where the admission cost was concerned.
And 'Brazil?' Criminys, don't even get me started. You'd have to be drunk, high, or both to even follow that abomination, and even then you'd probably need a copy of the script nearby. No, Terry Gilliam would have been absolutely the worst possible choice to direct movies made from Rowling's works.
I'm not saying that every movie needs to have a nice, happy ending. I'd settle for an ending where the lead character(s) experience some sort of growth or life-changing experience. Unfortunately, Gilliam seems to think that every one of his movies should end with someone getting blown up, or losing someone very close to them, or something equally rotten.
Seeing "Nightmare Before Christmas" made me swear off (and at) Gilliam's films permanently, and I know I can't be the only one who feels that way. Given Gilliam's touch, "Harry Potter" would probably have ended with the school getting blown up by a series of well-intentioned spells, or some similar idiocy.
Thank God Janet Rowling had more sense than to let him direct!
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Who ?
How to contact me - http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html
You know already unless you live in a coffin ....
Well, I don't know so I guess I live in a coffin.
Proud to be an American who's not a slave to popular culture. Harry who? Couldn't find the man page for that, sorry.
--- There is a man in a smiling bag.
He was bad and obnoxious. I hated how he shouted "keep me safe" and almost drowned the real kid to death.. obviously he didn't follow the 3 Laws of Robotics - especially the first one: "A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."
I hated the dumb ending, too. It was so depressing. It made me miss Asimov's stories, and also Data.
-- The ballad of arrivederci
At the showing I saw, the whole theater went nuts when the broom hit Ron in the face. It was just such a slapstick surprise, it just *worked*.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It's interesting - I read the book only three days before seeing the film (saw the film a week ago at a preview), and I seemed to be the only one that noticed the ending had been changed.
I won't be able to sneak in a spoiler alert due to the lameness filter, but to people who see the film and have read the book: think. There's someone missing at the end climax. I'm curious to know why - I haven't read any of the other books yet, but I suspect the real reason for that extra character's presence gets explained later on. Wonder how they'll do that in the sequels.
Cheers,
Ian
quite something else :)
the evil of harry potter (adequacy.org) paper
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/17671 .html
Warner brothers tried to bully this 15 year old girl into giving up the domain name of her fansite - www.harrypotterguide.co.uk. They gave up in the end but its proved to me what immoral, money grabbing bastards they are.
This is why i won't be going to see it, i'm not giving my money to them.
Well, for those of us who aren't fortunate enough to live in a place showing this movie already, does anyone have the URL of a downloadable form (mpeg, divx, whatever as long as xine, MPlayer or avifile can display it)?
Lord of the Rings > Harry Potter
Well, actually, according to the alchemical lore that I've read, it turns lead into gold, and that is a metaphor for finding spiritual purity, thus granting immortality. (Either christian immortality in heaven/the afterlife or physical immortality, depending on which version you prefer.)
In short, it does both, but the turning lead into gold is a byproduct of reaching spiritual perfection.
(And before anyone starts to comment... this article is a copy, not my own creation, I just agree totally with the author of this piece.)
...
The Harry Potter books are rapidly becoming the most popular fiction in the history of literature. In just four years they have sold a staggering 100 million copies, and made their author, J.K. Rowling, a very rich woman.
Explaining the secret of their success, critics point to the brilliant invention in the plots and characters, the creation of a whole parallel world, and the attraction of the struggle of good against evil.
With the film version of the first book - which describes a magical boy's first year at a school for witches and wizards - released on Friday, interest is sure to increase even more.
Yet for all their richness, there are more than a few echoes of other classic stories within the pages of the Potter books, particularly from The Lord Of The Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, a film of which is released next month, competing with Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone.
Of course, when it comes to literature there's no such thing as an entirely original story. Even Shakespeare happily raided myths, chronicles and even contemporary authors in search of the ideas for the finest plays ever written.
It is part of the tradition of all great art - and this applies to music and painting just as much as literature - that ideas are passed down through the generations, constantly adapting and evolving as they go.
So while there's no denying that J.K Rowling's achievement is truly staggering, it's fascinating to look at why some elements of her stories seem rather familiar.
DAVID THOMAS reports.
J.R.R. TOLKIEN
- The Lord Of The Rings, published in 1954, has a good wizard - Gandalf - as a central character who guides the little hero and has a long, white beard and flowing hair.
Harry Potter has a good wizard, Dumbledore, as a central character who guides the little hero and has a long, white beard and flowing hair.
- The Lord Of The Rings has an evil, dark force who has fallen from power but is growing strong again: Lord Sauron.
THE Harry Potter books have an evil, dark force who has fallen from power but is growing strong again: Lord Voldermort.
- WHEN the hero of The Lord Of The Rings, Frodo, is close to the dark lord, the ring he is carrying grows heavy in his hand.
WHEN the hero of Harry Potter is close to the dark lord, the scar on his head burns with pain.
- IN THE Lord Of THe Rings there's a small, sniveling, treacherous character who is the sidekick of an evil wizard. His name is Wormtongue.
IN HARRY POTTER there's a small, sniveling, treacherous character who is the sidekick of an evil wizard. His name is Wormtail.
- IN THE HOBBIT, also written by J.R.R. Tolkien, there's a dark forest which the heroes fear to enter.
IN HARRY POTTER there's a dark forest which the heroes fear to enter.
- IN THE forest in The Hobbit there is a colony of talking giant spiders who try to murder the hero, Bilbo.
IN THE forest in Harry Potter there is a colony of talking giant spiders who try to murder the hero, Harry.
- IN THE Lord Of The Rings Frodo becomes invisible when he slops on his magic ring.
IN HARRY POTTER Harry becomes invisible when he slops on his magic cloak.
- IN THE Lord Of The Rings there are evil, half-dead, black-cloaked figures who can sense the hero's presence and seek to suck out his soul: the Wraiths.
IN HARRY POTTER there are evil, half-dead, black-cloaked figures who can sense the hero's presence and seek to suck out his soul: the Dementors.
- IN THE Lord Of The Rings the Elven Queen has a pool of liquid - the Mirror of Galadriel - in which she can see events far away and at different times.
IN HARRY POTTER, Dumbledore has a pool of liquid - the Pensieve - in which Harry can see events far away and at different times.
- IN THE HOBBIT the hero is attacked by a huge mountain troll.
IN HARRY POTTER the hero is attacked by a huge mountain troll.
- IN THE Lord Of The Rings, the ancient sword of Anduril is used to cut the ring from the dark lord's hand.
IN HARRY POTTER, the ancient sword of Godric Gryffindor is used to slay the Baslisk, a serpent doing the bidding of the dark lord.
- IN THE Lord Of The Rings, Frodo and his companions visit a village pub, The Prancing Pony, and are served by Barliman Butterbur.
IN HARRY POTTER, Harry and his companions visit a village pub, The Three Broomsticks, where they drink pints of butterbeer.
- IN THE Lord Of The Rings, Gandalf is carried away from danger from the top of a wizard's tower by a giant eagle.
IN THE third Harry Potter book Harry's godfather Sirius Black is carried away from danger near the top of a tower by a giant Hippogriff (which is half-eagle).
NARNIA
- AT THE beginning of the Narnia book THe Last Battle, by C.S. Lewis - the final installment of the series published in the Fifties - the children leave a railway station platform and are thrown into the magical world from the train.In the book The Secret Of Platform 13, by Eva Ibbotson, there is also a secret link into a magical world via a railway station platform.
NEAR the beginning of Harry Potter, he and his friends use a railway station platform - nine-and-three-quarters at King's Cross - to move into the magical world.
- IN NARNIA there are wise and magical centaurs who befriend the Pevensle children.
IN HARRY POTTER there are a wise and magical centaurs, one of which, Firenze, lets Harry ride on his back.
- IN THE The Magician's Nephew, the children Diggory and Polly ride on a flying horse to save Narnia from an evil witch.
IN HARRY POTTER Harry and Hermione fly on a Hippogriff (a beast which is half-horse) to save the innocent Sirius Black. (Also, one of the characters in Harry Potter is called Cedric Diggory. Unusual name, isn't it?)
N.K. Stouffer
- AMERICAN children's author N.K. Srouffer, in her 1984 book The Legend of Rah And the Muggles, used the term Muggles and the book includes the charter Larry Potter. J.K. Rowling uses the word Muggles to describe 'non-wizarding peoples' and, as we all know, her hero is called Harry Potter.
- STOUFFER'S book contained a castle, like Hogwarts, which was approached by boat across a lake. And there was a character called Nimbus, who could fly - as does Harry Potter's flying Nimbus 2000 broomstick.
- IN STOUFFER'S book the Muggles form a group called Nevils.
In Harry Potter there is a character called Neville.
- IN STOUFFER'S book there is a character called Lilly Potter.
HARRY'S mother is called Lily Potter.
- STOUFFER'S lawyers claimed that: 'There are many more similarities (between the books), all of which cause further confusion, infringe upon Stouffer's trademarks and unfairly compete with her properties'.
IN THIS case, however, it is Rowling and her U.S. publishers Scholastic, who have sued Stouffer. The matter will be settled in a Manhattan courtroom.
AND OTHERS
- IN ROALD DAHL'S Matilda the Wormwoods are a nasty, suburban family who refuse to recognise the gifts belonging to their brilliant - and magical - daughter Matilda, and pretend she is criminal.
IN HARRY POTTER the Dursleys are a nasty suburban family who refuse to recognise the gifts belonging to the brilliant - and magical - Harry and pretend he's been sent to St. Brutus's a school for Incurably Criminal Boys.
- IN T.H. WHITE'S Sword In The Stone, the young King Arthur, known then as Wart, is tutored but the friendly wizard, Merlin, and pulls a sword from a magical stone.
IN HARRY POTTER, Harry is tutored by the friendly wizard Dumbledore, and pulls a sword from a magical hat.
- IN SNOW WHITE a mirror talks to those looking in it, often dispensing unwanted advice.
IN HARRY POTTER a mirror talks to those looking in it, telling Harry to 'tuck your shirt in, scruffy!'
-IN THROUGH The Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll, there are talking chess pieces.
IN HARRY POTTER the chess pieces talk back, offering advice on what moves the players should make.
- IN THE Worst Witch, by Jill Murphy, pupils attend Cackles Academy. The heroine, Mildred Hubbe, learns about spells and potions. She flies on a broomstick, which she uses for school sports. And she fights with her friends against a gang of nasty pupils, who are female equivalents of Harry Potter's enemy Draco Malfoy and his pals.
IN HARRY POTTER, of course, most of the action takes place at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, where they learn about all aspects if magic and fly broomsticks, most memorably when playing Quidditch, the violent, airborne team game involving four flying balls.
- IN STAR WARS Luke Skywalker is an orphan (or so he believes) raised by his aunt and uncle, who don't acknowledge his true heritage.
HARRY POTTER is an orphan raised by his aunt and uncle, who don't acknowledge his true heritage.
- LUKE SKYWALKER'S mentor is Obi-Won Kenobi, who tells Like the most important thing about the Force is how he chooses to use it. HARRY'S mentor is Dumbledore, who tells him: 'It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are.'
- LUKE SKYWALKER fights Darth Vader, who cuts off his hand.HARRY fights Lord Voldermort, who wounds his arm.
Darth Vader, of course, turns out to be Luke's father. Can there be any serious Potter reader who does not wonder whether we are going to discover, one day, that Harry and Voldermort are related?
- FINALLY, in Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire there appears a sneaky, headline-hungry, utterly unscrupulous and deceitful woman journalist called Rita Skeeter, who horribly exploits and misquotes poor Harry.
I have been in Fleet Street journalism for a full 20 years. And in all that time I've never come across any fellow professional remotely like Rita Skeeter. Well, not many, anyway.
hawk
hawk, whose father worked with a british mechanic who scared off a problem customer when he said he'd get a "torch" to go look under her car.
You forgot one point. I understand that it is easily forgotten in our world, where every one of us (in an everyday manner) is confronted with people who are obviously incapable of using technology. However it is a prerequesit for science, that a theory is valid for any person in any place.
Therefore that child does not just have a talent for some specific technology, but he has a gift for performing acts that most other people are not able to -- by principle rather than difficulty.
Not having read the Harry Potter stories, i imagine that it addresses the reader's (the child's) dream of being a very special child. IANAP (I am not a parent), but i think it's a possible way to give children a sence of their own uniqueness.
This sig is a true statement, but I cannot prove it.
I can't believe this is 2001, I don't have a flying car... and people in the industrialized world are still shelling out good money for witch doctors to read Tarot cards and chicken bones for them. That was not what the sci-fi novels promised me!
Heinlein's novels promised this, more or less, though he was optimistic about the flying cars.
In case you did not get what the other AC replying to your post is saying. Terry Gilliam did not direct _Nightmare Before Christmas_. That was Tim Burton.
Is this movie not connected with the MPAA? You remember them? DeCSS? Imprisonment? Violation of civil rights? Did that get resolved and the MPAA send everyone a lollipop?
Haven't seen the movie yet though I've read the books a couple of times. Reading the Wired
online article about people trying to get the books banned from schools because they promote witchcraft, I was struck by 1) the unlimited gall of fundamentalists in the U.S. and 2) that this would be a great way to boost kids' self confidence for those who need it. I mean this is the ultimate nerd movie, and seems to have a message for non-nerds that nerd is cool. Best at this I've seen since Animal House and Buckaroo Banzai. This could be a good force for stopping the shootings in American schools. In these stories, as mentioned in other messages, there are lots of good morals stories but also it shows a kid who regularly gets picked on becoming a hero for use of his head and inner talents. Educators should get as many kids to see it as possible!
and it shows :
...
:P
... I wanted to cheer and be excited, and certainly the seen as a whole was brilliant
read some more taco
Are the Harry Potter books getting kids to read books or are they getting kids to read Harry Potter? One is great, the other is a fad. One will last them a lifetime, one will die shortly after the last book comes out. (I also submit that it is probably too early to tell the long lasting effects.)
/ index.htm) the books got him to read, period.
For Scott. M. (http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/lifechange
1. Nothing says that a robot has to follow Asimovs laws... I certainly don't believe that every robot in the future will...
2. They didn't try to build a robot like that... They tried to build something more... Which pretty much is the point in the story...
I hated the dumb ending, too. It was so depressing. It made me miss Asimov's stories, and also Data.
I loved the entire movie - including the ending...
-- No, no -- Not that one!
There was NO magic here compared to the NeverEnding Story and Labrynth. Both of those movies are heads and tales about Harry Potter. Harry was good, but they could have EASILY made it into an 1.30min long flick. I think I yawned through most of this movie.
I clicked on mapquest.com to find out where Zeeland, MI was, and a pop-up ad for the movie magically appeared!
Haley Joel Osment:
1) Delivers dialog well
2) More importantly can communicate in the absence of dialog
3) Is best appreciated by people who are adept at reading people. In other words, many geeks [apprently including CmdrTaco] could probably be considered somewhat Haley-impaired
Despite all that...the real star was the damn teddy bear anyway.
Do a google search for "The World Inside the Crystal" by Stephen Savitzky. Cool song along these lines.
Dang it... That's what I get for trying to type intelligent feedback after a 12+ hour day with minimal sleep the night before...
Fine... I screwed up. Let me rephrase. Seeing 'Nightmare Before Christmas' made me swear off (and at!) TIM BURTON'S movies permanently.
I still don't like the ending of "Time Bandits." And I'm still glad that Janet Rowling didn't let Terry Gilliam near her creation(s).
How's that?
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Well, it's probably a little late to post this, but what the hey...
:-)
I saw the movie twice over the last week - first with my wife and 6-year old and then with a 95-year old (my great-aunt - loves the books, loves movies, you'd wish you were as alive as her when you hit 95). During the second viewing, I had more time to think about the story and what hit me is that Wizards and geeks have a fair amount in common.
Consider; Harry finds that there is a subculture of people who have access to hidden powerful knowledge that most people don't know about. Technology geeks likewise understand How Things Work that gives us abilities that "muggles" don't have. How often have you been asked to "just look at my computer" by someone who treats it as a "magical box" and operates it by rote?
Similarly, spells are based (in the HP world) in incantations; understanding the right words (yes, and the right pronunciation, Hermione) is the key to successful spell casting. COnsider the accuracy of language used in good engineering documents, let along source code.
Ok, it's not a sociology thesis, but I think it's an interesting comparison.
ben_ the technologist and platform agnostic
Harry Potter is a Mind Control Device
Enjoy...
-NeoTomba