Harry Potter strikes back

theefer writes "Harry Knowles from Ain't It Cool News has posted a link to the Harry Potter & Chamber of Secrets trailer. RealVideo, WindowsMedia and Quicktime versions available. Looks better than the first movie. Muggles, start your crossover plugins."

Comments

Awesome movie

[octalgirl]

and great FX. Cant wait for the next one.

Re:Awesome movie

[Anonymous Coward]

translation:
ok plot, and Captain Motion Blurring abusing his superpowers continuously.

Chamber of secrets?

[zapod4]

Who want the Chamber of Secrets movie? I want Harry Potter 5! Why is it taking her so long?

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[Anonymous Coward]

waiting to release the book with the movie and make more $ is my guess

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[Zeinfeld]

waiting to release the book with the movie and make more $ is my guess

Great, after they make the film of the book they can write the book of the film of the book, then they can do the film of the book of the film of the book...

Thing that gets me is the adults who are too wussy to read the books in public. The woman I sat next to on the plane had the dust jacket of Milet's autobiography wrapped round a copy of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkabahn.

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[Anonymous Coward]

how can you read these child stories? why don't you read some detectives or Sci-fi?

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[theefer]

That's what I kept saying until I read the first book ;)

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[The J Kid]

I want Harry Potter 5!

It will be released when it's done.

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[beamdriver]

Don't worry, I hear that Harlan Ellison has taken time off from working on "Last Dangerous Visions" to help Rowling finish up Harry Potter 5.

So we should be seeing it some time before the heat death of the universe.

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[JFMulder]

I asked the same question at a bookstore yesterday and I was told that it was comming out in 2003. The book is donem, but J.K.Rowling wants all translations done before selling it. So the book could be done, but it's not out yet since the translations aren't finished.

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[NaveWeiss]

If it's finished already, might it mean that maybe one of the translators "accidently" shared with KaZaA a copy of the book?

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[erat]

I could say the same thing about detective and sci-fi books... There's more of a story in Harry Potter books than I've ever read in any dectective or sci-fi book, bar none.

Perhaps you should try reading a few HP books before making any more comments?

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[NaveWeiss]

You know, literature is not a computer game.

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[The J Kid]

'course it IS :P

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[bbtom]

Just wait until J.K. Rowling authorises Slashdot to produce the 'l337 h4x0r' version...

"h4RrY p0773r @nd 7h3 pH1l0z0oPh3rS s70nE".

Perhaps then the /. crowd may read it...

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[steeef]

haha, i usually take the dust cover off the book while i'm reading it, and not just with harry potter books. not necessarily because i'm embarresed, but because i can't stand the things. they keep sliding all over the place.

although, maybe i felt better knowing not everyone could tell what i was reading...

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[JFMulder]

I just did a bit of searching of Kazaa, and the book came out very quickly. It's named Order of the Phoenix and it's in the Microsoft Word format. I opened it with Notepad (I didn't want to be infected with a macro virus, if there was one in it) and looked the content. The first line of the document states that it's a fake that someone put on the web just to see how gullible people are and think that this is the real deal. The file contains a part of book four and nothing about book five.

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[Hast]

Perhaps you should try reading more books. IMHO the HP books have been pretty bad so far. Mostly it's been a silly version of a child detective story. The last one did make me want to read number five though, so it may be that they are shaping up.

But compared to SF stories like "Do androids dream..", "Enders game", "Speaker for the dead", "Use of weapons" etc they are really simplistic. Just get a list of other nebula winners and you see a lot of books that are way better than any in the HP series. (So far at least.)

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[BaldGhoti]

It's a CHILDREN'S book. Of COURSE it's simplistic, that's the point. I'm a huge fan of the Ender's Game series, and I also love Harry Potter, but for two very different reasons.

Yes. It's a children's book. But it's a very good children's book.

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[Iffy Bonzoolie]

They've been pretty bad, but you bothered to read all of them to date?

I watched the movie before I had read the books, and thought it was pretty good, except for a few bits here and there. Certainly enjoyable. Then I read all the books, and was aching to see the movie again, so I bought it. I don't think I liked the movie as much after reading the books... Of course, I still want to see the next one. I'll watch it again right before the next movie comes out.

I noticed with the books that the first one was written kind of like a fairy-tale... but the later books have been geared somewhat more towards adults... I think she realized that adults were her real market when writing the later books. You might also notice how the size of the books explodes as you get further in the series.

Or maybe it's because Potter himself is getting older. In the last book, he's 3 years older than in the first book. At that age, your perspective changes quite a lot in 3 years. Maybe she's trying to reflect that in the books. If kids Harry's age are reading the books, and she comes out with them no quicker than one a year, then her readership is growing with the kids in the story, so maybe that's what she's trying to do.

-If

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[Hast]

They've been pretty bad, but you bothered to read all of them to date?
I received them as a gift last year, so I already had them. And everyone around me was on about how good they are. Finally they are very easy to read, it's not hard to read them in one day. (Particularly the last two, as they were getting more interesting then.)

The thing I'm arguing against is the notion that HP are great books. That so many go around praising them like the best works of literature yet just shows that they need to read more. From a literate standpoint they are pretty poor, and from a plotwise standpoint they are not very interesting. But since they are easy to read and have charming characters they are popular.

And it should perhaps be pointed out that while I don't consider HP very good I don't mind reading it. Mainly because it's easy reading. And it's still better than quite a lot of the fantasy I've read in the past. (Such as the stuff Eddings produced.) But it's nowhere near "best SF/Fantasy ever", particularly not regarding plot.

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[Dysan2k]

My god.. WHAT do you think makes a good book? How about people ACTUALLY enjoy reading it? After 18 years of creative writing, I have to admit that I've gotten completely and utterly worn out with people saying that one book or series of books is "not good writing" when SO many others enjoy them. You know, a good book is a matter of opinion.

If you don't like them for one reason or another, say so along with WHY you don't like it. (And for the love of Christ, don't use the "That could never happen" line when discussing ANY fiction, sci-fi included.)

The Harry Potter series was written for children to read. It has enough appeal to adults that many of them enjoy the stories as well. I do. If you're looking for all those little buzzwords you heard in college (fore-shadowing, imagery, etc), then that's your thing. Go read Poe, Shakespeare, Joyce, et al. Don't try to take away from others what they enjoy. It only makes you look like a damn fool.

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[Hast]

If a lot of people enjoy reading it then that makes it mainstream. Ths means that it appeals to the lowest common denominator. It has not much to do with wether it is good or not. A good example is mainstream music. I challenge your to acclaim eg Britney Spears as great music, but a lot of people listen to it. It has mass appeal. But sure, it's all opinions, otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion.

What I object to is that a lot of people acclaim HP as best fantasy/SF ever. (Which the parent to my first post did.)

And sure, the series are geared towards children, it's particularly notable in the first two. (Which I also though were the poorest in the series.) And I already though I gave some pointers to what I didn't like in the books (plot and literature) but I'll give you some stronger pointers instead.

Spoliers, do not read if you intend to read the books:

In the first book I liked the first half before Potter got to Hogsworth. It was nice to read a book about a put down kid who stood up for himself. When they all got to H. it quickly degraded into a rather poor version of a child detective story. Particularly that the kids never went to the teachers or Dumbledore with the problems were never satisfactory for me. (It probably was for a child though.) And the idea of "protecting" one of the most dangerous items in the world with 4 puzzle which you routinely solve in the "master mind" section of newspapers really did it for me. When I got to that part it was good that it was easy to read, I probably wouldn't have finished the last 50 pages otherwise.

Now jump ahead to the forth book, which is generally the best. The killing in the end was pointless and convinient (for Harry). He had a rival and not only did he get to win but the guy also died in a heroic manner. There were no real point for it though. I felt as if it was put there to give the book a more "serious" appeal. At least as of yet it didn't have any large consequences for the people, by next book all will be well and Harry can start hitting on Cho again. Ergo - convinient death.

But sure, I'll read the next one when it shows. Just as I'll watch the next Star Wars episode when it arrives. Neither need to make the book/film good however. (Although I actually have reason to believe that HP:5 will be worth the time I spend reading it, which SW:3 most likely won't be.)

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[scot4875]

If a lot of people enjoy reading it then that makes it mainstream. Ths means that it appeals to the lowest common denominator.

This is false logic. Just because something is mainstream does *not* mean that it's somehow inferior to something that only appeals to a select, "enlightened" few. Perhaps it simply has several different elements that appeal to diverse groups? Maybe it's just been so well advertised that more people are willing to give it a chance? There are lots of reasons that something *could* be popular.

The Matrix was popular. Does that mean that it was just pandering to all the action movie junkies out there? Hell, my *grandparents* liked it. But it was popular, so it must be crap, right?

My roommate has the same attitude, and it bugs the hell out of me. Anything pop culture is bad. Unless he likes it -- then he somehow justifies how it's not *really* pop culture, or that it's somehow better than other stuff. If you ask me, it's just a snobby attitude towards people who he (or you) thinks are less educated/enlightened/whatever than himself (or yourself). I think that's BS.

--Jeremy

mmm

[djdrew6k]

I love the first frame, how it's all black. Oh, the next frame... yeah... looks black, too! Nice.

wait a minute... oh hah! I get it, I can't see the video.

they almost got me there with that one.

now really, where's this real "trailer" y'all keep talkin about? It couldn't be better than my Cobra(tm) Phoenix!

a-bomb

Re:mmm

[Anonymous Coward]

what are you talking about?

Re:mmm

[Anonymous Coward]

At first your comment confused me. Then it suddenly dawned on me.

Ah HA!

You're retarded.

Better than the first movie?

[tcc]

I didn't like the first movie, I don't think it did justice to the book.

Maybe it was due to the fact that I saw it on DVD instead of movie theatre, but I think the movie wasn't that great compared to expectations. Of course if you are a kid, chances are you were enchanted to see the book character comming to life. So in that perspective it was probably good. But they did mention targetting the whole family, and I saw disney movies that caught me way more than this one, and most are far less violent or adult-oriented (if I can say it like that).

I thought maybe it was because I couldn't be impressed anymore with special effects and storylines and so on, but when I recall my reaction seeing LOTR, it proves to me that it's not true, that I can still be amazed. Problem is I can't point precisely what I didn't about harry potter... maybe it's the linearity of events, maybe it was the actors...

maybe someone else was stuck with that feeling afterwards and could spring in some discussion as well.

Re:Better than the first movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. I thought the movie did a fair job with the book considering the limitations of the medium. As an adult I could raise issues to convince myself otherwise. However my 6-yr-old was totally engrossed in the movie (as he was the books) and has watched the DVD several times. I have no doubt it is his favorite movie. He will definitely want to see the Chamber of Secrets when it hits the theaters.

Re:Better than the first movie?

[alexjp]

I think the biggest problem was that so much of the movie's focus was about being faithful to the book. Chris Columbus et al were so concerned with making the book's fans happy that they lost a lot of opportunities to make a better movie.

One of the reasons Fellowship of the Ring was such a great movie was that the screenwriters and director took real liberties with the _story_ to make it better for the film medium. Tolkien's books are not nearly as plot-driven as the Harry Potter series - there's a huge amount of character development and background information, providing a rich palette from which to draw when translating to another medium.

Jackson's team recognized this, and were incredibly faithful to Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth, even as they altered the plot of the story to fit into the new format.

While the Harry Potter books are great, they are ultimately children's books. They just don't have the enormous depth of Middle Earth; Columbus's team had a much less rich palette to draw on. I thought they did a good job with the look and feel of the place. But the simpler world, combined with rabid (and very young) fans demanding a movie very closely matched to the book, lead to a film that's perhaps not as strong as it could be.

-Alex

Re:Better than the first movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

> One of the reasons Fellowship of the Ring was such a great movie was that the screenwriters and director took real liberties with the _story_ to make it better for the film medium

I can't disagree more. LOTR was a shitty movie. Long . Boring. Full of manierism. Linear. Useless (you can cut 1/2 hour anywhere and someone that don't know the book would probably not even notice).

I can agree that is is not a shitty as Star Wars Episode 1, but that's about all.

Re:Better than the first movie?

[DaytonCIM]

I took my nephew and some of his friends to see the 1st Harry Potter movie. I thought it was pretty good (although I have not read any of the books), but they all agreed that it wasn't quite as good as they expected.

I think that expectations for some of the bigger films (i.e. HUGE ad campaigns) outgrow the film. We are inundated with print ad and TV spots for 2 or 3 months before the film is released. We are teased with quick shot after quick shot. And by the time the film is released, it doesn't meet with our overgrown expectation. In addition, any movie taken from a best-selling novel tends to not live up to the original novel.

Re:Better than the first movie?

[epukinsk]

Director Chris Colubus is the reason Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was as poor as it was. From where I was sitting, the continuity was crap and all the subtlety in the characters in the book went in one of Columbus's ears and out the other.

Take for example the scene where Madam Hooch drags Harry off for his horseplay in flying class. In the book the scene was extremely tense because you are wondering how Madam Hooch will react. The scene in the movie--because of the music choice, the way the scene is cut and the coaching of the actors--comes of completely flat.

It's sometimes hard to see because the story is so enchanting, but most of the scenes are just completely flat because of Columbus's shoddy directing. Thankfully, the third Harry Potter installment won't be directed by Columbus, but most likely Alfonso Cuaron, director of the current release "Y Tu Mama Tambien" and the 1998 remake of "Great Expectations" with Gwyneth Paltrow and Ethan Hawke.

Though Cuaron might not be the best director in the world, perhaps he will avoid Columbus's biggest mistake. There are certain things that make a good movie that simply aren't necessary to make a good book. Chris Columbus took the parts of Harry Potter that make it a great book and put them on the screen, but he didn't make the necessary changes to make it into a great movie.

Erik

Re:Better than the first movie?

[denshi]

There are a wealth of reasons to dislike the first Potter movie. It was, on the technical level, a piece of crap.

First and foremost, Chris Columbus's direction of shot construction. That movie had the least mobile camerawork of any film I can remember. Even "My Dinner With Andre" was more fluid, and it's just two guys sitting around a table! I can't overstate how significant this is: working the camera *into* a scene, instead of locking it down and having characters face the camera and narrate, is the very foundation of a good scene. Hell, half the movies discussed here on /. are notable b/c the staff are mostly camera nerds: the Matrix brothers had to hack together their systems for the stop-n-rotate scenes, there's so much being done with DVcam for portability, etc. Go watch the Potter movie again, and see if you can count more than 5 tracking shots in the whole freakin' film. Columbus had full lockdown for almost all footage, and tried to fake fluidity in editing. He's a hack.

The casting was mostly remarkable, except for Dumbledore. The guy playing him isn't going to live to the third movie! What was Columbus thinking? Oh, wait, we covered that deficiency already. Nevermind that for a minute. The actors were very good, but they were constrained by camerawork that was no better than a TV soundstage. So excellent casting and delivery, hobbled by poor framing.

Similarly, the stunts were crap. In the Quidditch scene, did anyone else get the feeling they were watching a late-80's graphics demo? Like from 2nd Reality or something?

The score was repetitive and totally forgettable. I intellectually recall the existence of background music, but can recall and feel none of it whatsoever. The best score this year, btw, is in The Bourne Identity, if you like scores.

Costumes & set construction was unusual: I wasn't expecting steampunk. But that's only stylistic, and not a point of contention, unlike the stupid 'flying staircases' scenes: they 1) weren't in the books, and 2) didn't develop anyone's character. It was typical kids-movie tripe: pointless onscreen toys for gefingerpoken und mittengrubben. Besides that, I was thinking, "didn't I already see this in Labyrinth?" Although, if they added David Bowie in tight pants to the later films, you bet you'd find me in the theater more often.

Re:Better than the first movie?

[Vegan Pagan]

One big problem was that the major people involved were there for the money, not the movie. The license was bought by WB and assigned to staff who were not enthusiastic or a good fit, but could be made obedient with enough money. Compare that to LotR which was started and run by a director who had to have enough enthusiasm to convince a reluctant studio and staff to commit $300M, 18 months of production and 2 years of post-production.

The Harry Potter movies are made to cash-in on a fad before it vanishes. The LotR movies are made because the director is a fan of the books.

Re:Better than the first movie?

[RickHunter]

I felt the same way when I saw it on DVD. Seeing it on the big screen, I thought it was very good... But then I read the books, then watched a friend's copy of the DVD... And saw that there was so much they'd dropped out. It had basically been turned into a bunch of "best of" scenes that were, at best, loosely connected together.

And then LotR and Spider-man blew it all away.

Here's hoping the second one does a better job!

Re:Better than the first movie?

[epukinsk]

Columbus had full lockdown for almost all footage, and tried to fake fluidity in editing. He's a hack.

While I agree Columbus is hack, I totally disagree with your analysis of why he's so bad. Smoothness in editing doesn't come from tracking the camera, it comes from motivating the cuts and camera movements. This is what continuity editing is all about.

There are many many scenes in movie history with no camera movement whatsoever that are cut so beatifully that they come off as smooth as glass. It's about coaching the actors to give you the emotional responses you need for motivated cuts and setting up the shots beforehand such that the editing tells part of the story.

You can track every damn shot in the movie and it will still be a piece of shit if you don't pay attention to continuity.

Erik

Re:Better than the first movie?

[denshi]

Hmm.. you make an excellent point, and illuminate it better than I did. But I think we are still in agreement: I think that Columbus set the shots up poorly, and tried to fix all that in the edits. What I got wrong was focusing too much on movement as the prime indicator for a well-framed shot. Forgive me, I'm still new at this.

Re:Better than the first movie?

[ConceptJunkie]

I haven't read the books and won't judge the first book based on the movie, but I was fairly bored by it and here's why:

There wasn't one character in that movie that had any depth to him or her. Everyone was either a stereotype or the stereotypical exception to a stereotype (e.g., Alan Rickman's character, who is assumed to be evil 'cause he's a creep but turns out not to be).

Nothing made me care about the characters, particularly the antagonist.

I didn't go in jaded to be sure, especially since I was recently BLOWN AWAY by the LOTR and was expecting a good movie, but now I have no desire to see any more Harry Potter films.

Re:Better than the first movie?

[deblau]

I thought maybe it was because I couldn't be impressed anymore with special effects and storylines and so on, but when I recall my reaction seeing LOTR, it proves to me that it's not true, that I can still be amazed. Problem is I can't point precisely what I didn't about harry potter... maybe it's the linearity of events, maybe it was the actors...

Could it be that Peter Jackson actually took the time to make a good movie? Could it be that the faster Hollywood churns out movies, the more money they make, so movie quality deteriorates as a result?

Re:Better than the first movie?

[critter_hunter]

If they had only altered LOTR's plot it wouldn't be half bad. Their treatment of the characters, and especially Gimli, is HORRIBLE. Enough to ruin the damn movie. Hell, whenever Gimli opened his mouth, I thought I was watching the D&D movie *shiver*

The Harry Potter movie characters, however, were right on target. Of course, it wasn't so much an adaptation as a transcription, just like Ralph Bakshi's LOTR was.

Re:Better than the first movie?

[fr2asbury]

The casting was mostly remarkable, except for Dumbledore. The guy playing him isn't going to live to the third movie!

I take serious exception to this statement. "The Guy" who portrays Dumbledore is none other that Richard Harris. A notable and fine Irish actor. Perhaps the "biggest" star of the lot. I remember seeing him live on stage portray King Arthur in Camelot, a role he's portrayed many, many, times on stage and screen. Here's a little more info on whom you speak:

Richard Harris
actor
Born: 10/1/1933
Birthplace: Limerick, Ireland
Though born in Ireland, he has played the part of English kings, Arthur in the film version of Lerner and Loewe's Camelot (1967) and Richard I in Robin and Marian (1976), and French king George II in King of the Wind (1989). Throughout his prolific career, Harris has been part of classic films, including The Guns of Navarone (1961), Mutiny on the Bounty (1962), Hawaii (1966), and Unforgiven (1992). He received Best Actor Oscar nominations for The Field (1990) and This Sporting Life (1963), and won a Golden Globe for Camelot (1967). More recently, Harris has appeared in Gladiator (2000), and as Headmaster Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone(2001).

Well, now that we've got THAT straightened up.

Cheers,
Jonathan

Re:Better than the first movie?

[why-is-it]

(e.g., Alan Rickman's character, who is assumed to be evil 'cause he's a creep but turns out not to be).

You should probably read the books. Professor Snape definitely hates Harry Potter. I thought that Alan Rickman was an excellent choice to play Snape. His speech on the first day of Potions class was exactly as I imagined, and the director did not meet my expectations often...

Re:Better than the first movie?

[ConceptJunkie]

Oh, I would agree with you... the casting was great. I love Rickman's work.

I'm just glad LOTR is being done by someone who clearly has a deep affection for and understanding of the material and how to translate an untranslateable book into a movie with minimal compromise.

I've got the book, I'll get to it some day.

Hardly news

[Anonymous Coward]

The trailer has been out in the UK since May. This is hardly news for nerds either. I know it's Sunday and therefore there's no good news to post, but that's OK--you don't need to post stuff you know Taco et al.

Re:Hardly news

[hoomonkey]

new trailer, new footage... different than the first in may

Secret Chambers.

[_ganja_]

What is this? Slashdot "Secret Chamber Day" or something?

Re:Secret Chambers.

[Anonymous Coward]

why is this worthy? news for nerds, stuff that matters for juveniles is what it looks like. grow up ladies... funny how I saw that editor jamie being called a slashdot censor nazi. i read a thread that showed he is actively involved in censorship software and he is the one that has to be contacted when people are ip banned. trust *no* slashdipshit info - i consider it humor at best...

Work of the Devil

[Lord Apathy]

Since the bible thumpers seem to be asleep at the switch, I'll go a head and start the ball rolling for them.

Harry Potter is Evil, its the work of the devil. teaches the children the ways of satan and witchcraft. your all going to hell for this ungodly sin.. its EVILL i tell you EVILLLLLLL.

but of course you can help save the children, just send a love offerign.. call 1-900-sucker.. just think of the childrennnn not to mention my doghouse needs a new air conditioner... and I could use a bigger pool.....

Hows that? Kind of lame but I haven't had my coffiee yet.

moderators note: this is to be moderated as funny, not troll or flamebait. If you don't get the joke just go on and come back to it later

Re:Work of the Devil

[puff-d-dwaggie]

Just because its the work of the devil doesnt mean its all bad!

"Satan, God's OTHER Son!"

Re:Work of the Devil

[GigsVT]

Cats are the real evil... didn't you know that?

No good christian has a cat as a pet, and if they slipped up and got one by mistake, they should kill it. That is what the article says, and cites many bible references to support it.

Re:Work of the Devil

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. If I may, allow me to reply to that rubbish, lest anyone believe it.

Firstly, the Jehovah's Witnesses are not regarded as a Christian demonination by anyone but themselves. The viewpoint of the Christian church is that they are a cult.

[T]he nature of a cat is so marked as being 'beastly'... part of Satan's organization.

All animals are called 'beastly,' in Genesis 1:25 - "And God made the beasts of the earth... And God saw that it was good."

It was a common practice in ancient Egypt to worship or idolize cats as 'gods'.

It was also common practice to worship golden calfs, but I'm sure the Witnesses find no fault in farming.

History shows that cats were most likely present at [the beheading of John the Baptist].

As were birds, small rodents, flies, gnats... Don't forget about the people in attendance either!

Cats were recognized by the forces of Christendom as familiars and carriers if not direct incarnates of demons.

Correction: Cats were recognized by the forces of superstition, not the Church.

The cat has a rebellious, independent spirit.

Yeah, so does my nephew - is he serving Satan as well?

The scriptures clearly indicate that neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, faithful Job, the Apostles, Jesus nor any other human bearing God's favor himself owned a cat.

True, the scriptures do not say whether or not these men had cats; it also doesn't mention dogs, fish, snakes, geckos, or pot-bellied pigs.

Cats .. can shed Salmonella in their feces.

I bet I could too, if I tried real hard. Everyone's feces is unhygienic.

Cats practice... urination on the floor... stealing food from the table... excessive playfulness.

Again, sounds like my little nephew.

The feline is a killer. It eats mice...

Last time I checked, all sorts of animals ate other animals. It's a crazy system, but it just might work!

The whole page is the ramblings of one Jehovah's Witness. I don't know that it is the teachings of the entire 'church,' but it certainly is not endorsed by Christianity.

- Just presenting the other side of the story.

Re:Work of the Devil

[Fished]

I'm an accredited Bible-Thumper, and I like Harry Potter quite a bit. Don't believe any stereotype, because they're generally not true to life, silly slashdotter.

Re:Work of the Devil

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, now that is some seriously messed up stuff. I thought this guy was insane when he was talking about the evils of cats, but when he starts lamenting the fact that one insn't allowed to kill ones own children!

Re:Work of the Devil

[beanyk]

Firstly, the Jehovah's Witnesses are not regarded as a Christian demonination by anyone but themselves. The viewpoint of the Christian church is that they are a cult.

Excuse me? "The Christian Church"? Which one? There are dozens, perhaps hundreds.

Re:Work of the Devil

[lemkebeth]

Christian generally means Catholic when used in this context.

I'm not the poster but, that is the intention.

The others are generally referred to as Protestants, Orthodox, etc.

Re:Work of the Devil

[beanyk]

Well, I followed the link the AC poster provided, and it seems to lead to a website belonging to a mishmash of Christian denominations. What I couldn't see was anything Roman Catholic (or Lutheran, for that matter). I don't know if the various churches in the directory are actually part of the same denomination, but none of them were Catholic.

So while you might be correct about the general intention of posters on /. (though I never got that impression), this individual seems to be bucking the trend.

Sorry to have dragged this off-topic.

Re:Work of the Devil

[Maul]

For more information: http://www.chick.com

If you read Harry Potter, Play D&D, or don't pass out Chick Tracts, you WILL end up in a satanic cult!

Re:Work of the Devil

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: Although JW's believe many things that "orthodox" Christians do not, that site is not by a JW, and in no way reflects their beliefs.

About 90% of the sites out there about JW's are made by a vocal minority who are opposed to their activities and try to misrepresent them.

The only authoritative source of info about that organization is at www.watchtower.org.

Re:Work of the Devil

[Orbital Sander]

Since the bible thumpers seem to be asleep at the switch...

They were probably in church, this being a Sunday 'n all.

Re:Work of the Devil

[zerocool^]

So i read most of the chick site, and that guy is really off the deep end.

What's amazing to me is:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0179.asp
This book, which appears to be a rebuttal of wicca, casting it as a satanic ritual. Of course, the source for this is a man who, through 16 years of wicca, came to it's higher levels. Guy's name is Bill Schnoebelen.

Now, that in it's self isn't amazing. What's amazing is that this same guy, Bill Schnoebelen, somehow, in the same lifetime, managed to make it to the 32nd level of masonry. See for yourself here...
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0193.a sp
Now, it says on both accounts that he came out of each religion to awaken to the love of Jesus Christ. Well, I don't think you can have it both ways. I mean, if he left one for jesus, woudn't he have to renounce jesus in order to become the next religion, and then be able to leave it for jesus? Or, was he both Wiccan and Masonic at the same time?

Seems more likely that he doesn't exist. Or, if he does exist, why trust religious persuasions from a guy who has been both a 16 year wiccan priest and a 32nd level mason, before becomming a christian?

Re:Work of the Devil

[brettper]

Maybe he's dual-classed?

Re:Work of the Devil

[WWWWolf]

Harry Potter is Evil, its the work of the devil. teaches the children the ways of satan

(Begin "Obscure Finnish black-metal-troll mode")

The first movie and book was clearly evil. The movie had a dragon, and on top of that, it came from Norway, the country in which all evil of the world incarnates. On top of that, my sources inform that this particular Norwegian dragon species is the only one to eat fish, which means it will eat in its native environment cods, the Satan's Fishes. The movie was clearly work of Satan!

(There was one guy who went to teenager-inhabited web site to troll like this - always everything turned on to paint very dark picture of Norway. Mostly, I think, because he listened to black metal himself. Of course, later on everyone could read the stuff only as humor and nothing else, and that's what it was intended as =)

Re:Work of the Devil

[Maul]

Yeah, I've read just about everything by Bill Schnoebelen. He wrote a couple of the articles that say D&D is Satanic. He purports that he helped TSR make magic in D&D "authentic" when he was a Wiccan.

This seems highly doubtful since he seems to know almost nothing about the game except what he might have learned through skimming a rule book once or twice.

This stuff is actually pretty amusing to read because his grasp of the game is so poor that it does beg the question if he really exists at all, or if he is just someone "made up" by Chick Publications.

For a really funny read, check out the Dark Dungeons comic that Jack Chick wrote in 1984 It involves a teenager plays D&D, and then joins a Satanic cult. But then her friend commits suicide (because of D&D), and she discovers how bad D&D _really_ is!!!!
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0 046_01.a sp

Interestingly enough, I've read that Jack Chick and his company make millions a year selling their literature. Not surprising, considering the blatant sensationalism they hype their stuff up with.

Curmudgeon death blow

[Demona]

I haven't read any of the Potter books, nor did I see the first movie. Yesterday I downloaded the trailer at my wife's request (obligatory direct link to the 17Mb Quicktime) and watched it with her. She has read all the books and seen the first movie. Now she shrugged this off, surprisingly enough, so I want your reaction to my statement made immediately after watching it:

"I defy anyone to tell me with a straight face that Harry Potter has not been Hollywoodicized, when you see a fricking HONG KONG SPIN IN THE TRAILER."

Yes? No? Maybe? Am I just a curmudgeon, or is there a proper time and place for everything -- and are we sick to fricking death of seeing Hollywood turn the classic Hong Kong Spin into an overused whoring technique that turns everything into everything else and the Matrix?

My wife thinks it'll be during the "Duelling" bit.

Re:Curmudgeon death blow

[Verteiron]

Actually, upon freeze frame it looks like it's the Gilderoy vs. Snape duel where, if I remember correctly, Snape sends Gilderoy flying. It may not be a "Hong Kong Spin" so much as a "just-got-hit-off-center-with-a-blast-of-something -nasty-and-I'm-being -blown-away" spin.

Re:Curmudgeon death blow

[Animats]

From the trailer, it's been overdone. The whole point of the Harry Potter books is that magic is [I]routine[/I], and Harry has to deal with it. The trailer has way too much moving camera work.

Rowling is likely to feel about this the way Tom Clancy did about the movie version of "Patriot Games". It's customary in Hollywood to ignore the writer, but Rowling and Clancy write books that translate well into screenplays. Rowling, in fact, is better at it; Clancy's books have several times as much material as will fit in a movie, but Rowling's books translate well scene for scene.

Re:Curmudgeon death blow

[cheese_wallet]

ignore the writer? Have you read the books? I felt like the directors/producers had a checklist of every event that happens in the book, and didn't stop filming until everything on the list was there.

Re:Curmudgeon death blow

[Animats]

That's definitely how #1 went. From the trailer, though, #2 seems to have been overdramatized with excessive effects. But that may just be the trailer.

Re:Curmudgeon death blow

[cheese_wallet]

You may be right. The trailer, to me, looked just like the first one. I recognized many scenes, but it has been a while since I read the book.

better

[bicho]

be better than the past one.
I am watching this one because i liked the books and i have so poor imaginatin I like when i can give faces and voices to the characters.
But the first movie was really bad, imho.
To LOTR, the wors thing done was ripping out Glorfindel and putting Arwen in its place, and THAT phrase "If you want him, come and claim him". Agh!
But what they did to the first HP (not Hewlett Packard btw, as in IP doesnt mean Internet Protocol any more) book ... ouch.
hope this one is better and more truthfull to the story and the book.
PS. I still am one of those poor guys with 56K modem connection and with no QT plugin. Anyone knows if there is a downloadable version somewere?

Re:better

[rogerzilla]

It was posted above. Right click and Save Target As.

http://progressive.stream.aol.com/wb/gl/wbonl ine/progressive/harrypotter/us/med/trailer/hp2_trl 2_qt_500_dl.mov

Much more interesting stuff on AICN

[ajs]

I'm shocked this is the latest AICN story in a while!

Here's some other tidbits from the site:

• a review of the original pilot for Firefly that won't air on Fox until December (apparently it didn't have enough action for Fox).
• Hoshi's almost-bare-breasted scene in Enterprise
• Neil Gaiman writing for Robert Zemeckis

Among many other interesting stories. The only problem is their "talkback" system will make you long for Slash or PHPNuke ;-)

Does Anybody Else Think ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a film aimed at ten year olds doing on Slashdot ?

hope it's better than the first

[Anonymous Coward]

The first movie was entertaining, although not all that special. I guess if you're under about 13 years old, it would have been great. Books are probably pretty entertaining for the same age group (from what I saw on screen, I would probably have enjoyed the books as a kid, too).

I just hope the second movie is better than the first. While the first was a fun, if typical ride, it had a ho-hum pointless ending. What kind of resolution is there to watching a room full of gets get points and cheer for it? Could have cut the movie 15 minutes short right there.

This is the SECOND trailer

[Masem]

There was a first trailer back in June (and shown with several movies, including MIB2, back then) which you can get from Apple's QT site as well as WB's site. This is a different trailer, and shows several new scenes (most which appear to be straight from the book).

(And coincidence or not, Pete Abrams has been doing a Potter parody at Sluggy Freelance for the last couple of weeks, based weakly off the first book/movie).

Re:This is the SECOND trailer

[wd123]

(And coincidence or not, Pete Abrams has been doing a Potter parody at Sluggy Freelance for the last couple of weeks, based weakly off the first book/movie).

I doubt it's a coincidence. Pete tends to have plotlines worked out 6-12 months in advance (at least according to the hintings on his site). I imagine he's been planning this for quite a while. He said he had the last arc (Aylee showdown) planned since what would have been Summer 2000 (The Lodoze/Gofotron arc). I think he has more ideas and less time to draw, which is definitely not a bad thing.

It's a shame sluggy isn't syndicated or similar, it's probably the best daily comic out there.

Re:This is the SECOND trailer

[malducin]

Actually it's the third trailer overall. There was a 30 second teaser around June, and then a trailer around August. I've had links for the 3 of them.

Actually I fail to see all the hoopla, it's already available on the official Potter site.

Hopefully the effects will be better this time.

[-douggy]

Things like quidith where one person was lit from the left and the other was lit from the right.

I know it is a childrens movie but a lot of adults love Harry Potter and in this day and age effects like that should be spot on

"Muggles, start your crossover plugins." ??

[samoht]

Tsk. That can't right. Everybody knows that muggles use Windows. It's the wizards who use Linux and thus have need of the Transversus Celeritum Tempus incantation.

Hey mang, where can I get some of that stuff?

[Anonymous Coward]

When does Darth Vader...

[Wag]

announce he's Harry's father?

Re:When does Darth Vader...

[cei]

Episode 5. But it won't be until Episode 6 that Harry realizes that Hermione is his twin sister and the jealous love triangle with Ron is resolved...

Of course, that puts Harry's owl as R2-D2 and Voldemort as Vader.

Harry Potter vs. LoTR

[NaveWeiss]

So what's worse - HP or LoTR?

LoTR has shallow characters, and everybody knows that (even the fans). Tolkien prefered to concentrate on his universe rather on the characters, and the result is that I don't care about the protagonists, so why would I care about the story?

HP has much more interesting characters, and they develop through the books. The main problem is that it's childish. There are gags which repeat through the series, like for example the usual mess Harry Potter leaves in the Dursley's place before his school year start. I get sort of an industrial feeling when I read it.. especially during the fourth book.

But what, at least HP is a page turner. I couldn't finish the first LoTR book - I had an urge to fall asleep each time I read it.. (especially after the gang left the Elven village).

And about the movies.. HP was more interesting than LoTR.. but what, I think the HP book is more enjoyable. After all, the movie has to cut a lot of stories.. and besides, it's still fun to imagine the story yourself.

Re:Harry Potter vs. LoTR

[Anonymous Coward]

You could also try to compare Shakespeare and (e.g.) Stephen King. Both are about some people getting killed. But...

got the point?

HP: some books
LOTR: literature

Re:Harry Potter vs. LoTR

[Anonymous Coward]

"The main problem is that it's childish"

Of course. It is when all is said and done a children's book.

And just another in a long line of english school
books with a fantasy twist.

So well travelled territory.
Much of it ripped off from Jones.

Re:Harry Potter vs. LoTR

[gl4ss]

well, to put it simple, lotr is just one part of great epic history. you gotta admire the work that went to middle-earth and all that.. especially since he couldn't just take a hike and listen some elder people gabble some poetic stories and then remix/combine them (like one writer who documented folklore which ended up being part of inspiration to this made up world of tolkiens).

harry potter on the other hand is just modification of this world mixed with some folklore and exciting things.

you can read all the harry potters in the same time as you can read silmarillion(yes i've read both of 'em, harry potter is so straightforward writing that you can read it really fast and not lose anything, the (hp)books getting so thick is because of this.. they're getting better tho, and not at all _that_ bad books).

btw, there is an excellent cartoon that's available on dvd of "hobbit"(is it hobbits tale in english?). not realistic but very hobbit stylish..

For those without crossover

[pardasaniman]

Just paste this location into realplayer
http://raincloud.warnerbros.com/harrypotter/us/m ed /trailer/hp2_trl2_500.rpm

Looks better? Gotta be kiddin me

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks pretty much exactly like the first one, CGI should be discreet and enhance the story - effectively making the impossible feel real. This application of it just makes most of the movie look computer generated, and badly integrated at that. Someone needs to learn "moderation".

Not that I expected anything else.. Two Towers here I come.

Re:I refuse to watch such inane childish bullshit

[hoomonkey]

yeah, star wars was much less childish and much more realistic and believable. so was star trek, and spiderman, and the x men... etc.

lighten up, you arrogant prick.

Opinions, I got opinions...

[A nonymous Coward]

... so mod whores, here ya go :-)

Harry Potter in the book is a spunky little kid, always tweaking his cousin, always getting into trouble, even when it's not intentional. The movie Harry Potter is too damned cautious or timid. I can't imagine him pissing off Dudley even by accident.

The movie left out Hermione's contribution to the final part, and also changed a bunch of it around for no particular reason.

subjectively pornographic link above.

[gimpboy]

while the image you linked to is quite amazing, i dont think it is the right one :). so moderators, the link above has a picture of a man with his own penis in his own ass. i think it's off topic.

Re: Crossover

[Nailer]

I was thinking about this earlier today and realized I'd be happier to have to pay Apple for a native Linux Quicktime player than pay to own Crossover Plugin (as I do now).

Is it just me or ..

[AndroidCat]

Does anyone else read the title as "The Chamber Potty of Secrets"?

I mean, no wonder that it's remained sealed for so long and why it's such a big deal when it's openned. Sitting on it would probably give you Malvolmort's face, and not on the back of your head this time!

This is great

[JFMulder]

The Harry Potter books are the best books that I read in the last few years. I've read many good fantastic books (including, LOTR, evidently) and what striked me with the Harry Potter books is that they are so much fun to read. The Harry Potter's universe is very magical with a lot of funny touches and mystical creatures. It's a world you'd like to be part of. I can't wait to read the fourth book which I bought yesterday since I heard it covers even more the magical world of Harry.

It took me a month to go throught the first book since I wasn't so much in it, but it took me a week to go through book 2 and 3. They are that good.

People shouldn't put anyway Harry Potter books because the first books are written toward a younger audience. They are for everyone, as Bilbo the Hobbit, a book Tolkien had written for his kids.

Re:This is great

[Engelbot]

I agree that they're excellent books, but I don't think they're fantasy books--they've got magic, dragons, castles, and all the usual fantasy trappings, but at bottom, they're mysteries.

You are right to be looking forward to the fourth book, however . . . if the first three were Star Wars, the fourth is The Empire Strikes Back. Darker, much cooler, and way more interesting.

Everyone out there who's been resisting reading Harry Potter, give in . . . it's not Tolstoy, or Tolkien, but wow, is it fun.

Trailers

[Raetsel]

Hey, thanks for the link! I've been trying to figure out how to get my hands on that... I just hadn't dedicated too many neurons to finding it. With a little more effort, I managed to dig up the first trailer (Quicktime/25.5 MB!), so now everyone can have a matched set!

Now, about that 'fight' scene... so that's a "Hong Kong Spin," huh? Never knew that little tidbit. It sure looks like something I've seen in a dozen other movies. Perhaps it's an 'action move' that's (comparatively) easy to teach/perform/film? Best "bang for the filming buck?"

If they use "bullet time" in a Harry Potter movie, what'll they call it? ("Wizard Time?") What things happen so fast they'd need it? (I started to think "no guns in the Harry Potter universe" -- I keep forgetting the setting is present-day.)

You are mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows is chock full of wizards. Now apologize immediately or I shall turn you into a newt. :)

Re:I refuse to watch such inane childish bullshit

[AKnightCowboy]

yeah, star wars was much less childish and much more realistic and believable. so was star trek, and spiderman, and the x men... etc.

Well, actually it is. Star Wars had an adult theme to it.. war. Harry Potter (which I was begrudgingly dragged to watch by my wife) was a pile of horse shit that seemed aimed at 8 year old kids. I might as well have been watching the next Disney flick. Now, there's NOTHING wrong with that if the audience is 8 year old kids, but I would imagine most Slashdot readers are in their teens or twenties (yes, and many are older) and should really have grown out of this phase. Lord of the Rings is one thing since there's decent swordplay and orcs, but this childish bullshit world of Harry Potter's little wizard school is gay. Whoever wrote this movie had to be smoking crack because it's got to be the worst representation of wizardry I've ever seen.

well

[waspleg]

i went to see it at an 11:30 pm showing after it had been out for weeks and i had the entire theatre to myself and my g/f (who had talked me into giong to the movies that night) and I was actually impressed as I had expected it to be another annoying kiddie film.. i haven't read the books and probably won't either.. my $.02

Re:well

[nevershower]

You actually watched the movie? ;)

Harry Potter is ..

[Anonymous Coward]

.. Linux Torvalds when he was 10 years old!

Did anyone else think...

[JaredOfEuropa]

...Harry's voice sounded a bit odd? "Harry Potter: the year my voice broke" or something...

Re:Did anyone else think...

[timmyf2371]

Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter)'s voice broke near the end of filming the first movie (The Philosopher's Stone) and the producers had to dub someone else's voice over for part of the film.

Tim

Re:Did anyone else think...

[sql*kitten]

...Harry's voice sounded a bit odd? "Harry Potter: the year my voice broke" or something...

I would have no ethical problems whatsoever with treating the actors with hormones to keep their growth in line with the filming schedule :-)

Re:I refuse to watch such inane childish bullshit

[hoomonkey]

ok, i see your point, but i don't agree.

who typically writes the shit aimed at 8 year olds? adults, right? they are idiots because they have the ideas and put them on paper? saying something is childish simply because it isn't full of blood and guts and tits and ass, ins't 'grown up' is sad. yes, the disney flicks are sugar coated and sometimes stupid, but enjoying reading kids books or seeing the movies makes you childish and stupid? i don't think so ... hell, half the people reading and posting here play video games 8 hours a day and read comics and play board games, etc... a LOT of them check out the comics these days because loads of the women characters are dressed in next to nothing and it's a cheap thrill checking out a pic of a hottie with a big gun and bigger tits.

i think it's more offensive when someone thinks a show, movie or book kicks ass just because it has tons of that hardcore shit... look at the latest star trek series. a hot as hell vulcan? what a crock! they are pandering to mindless fools looking for a cheap thrill rather than attempting to make a cool show. i love seeing a hottie as much as the next guy, and the stories don't have to hold the meaning of life or anything, but substituting that for substance to sell a show or book is simply insulting to my intelligence. i have to see tits and ass to be interested? blood and guts? give me some credit here... so just because i like kids stories i am a moron? i don't think so...

you like blood and guts, fine... not for me, but go for whatever gets you going. i love dumb ass stories and stupid action flicks as much as i loved the lord of the rings movie and when i read it as a kid. oh, and i like harry potter and other kids stories.

have some respect here for others if you expect them to have some respect for whatever it is that you enjoy.

Linux players

[cbcbcb]

can xine or mplayer play any of the trailers?

Re:Linux players

[Gnutzel]

Take a nice cup of:

[1]./asfrecorder "http://raincloud.warnerbros.com/harrypotter/us/me d/trailer/hp2_trl2_500.asx"

and just share it. Is just a trailer. And you take the load from `demand.stream.aol.com`...

./mplayer hp2_trl2_500.wmv

BTW: The Queens of the Stoneage video is far better.

[1]asfrecorder.c - by an unknown author, so no one is to blame. Well, blame it on Microsoft.

Matrix: Reloaded

[Galahad2]

In the spirit of drawing attention to trailers that have been out for a month, here's the Matrix Reloaded trailer.

Are you CRAZY? [AC reply / nvws]

[NaveWeiss]

Hello monsieur AC.

LoTR is hardly literature. It's a boring travel log. Really. There aren't enough girls there. And I don't like neither Shakespeare nor Stephen King.

Re:Are you CRAZY? [AC reply / nvws]

[Hast]

Well what would you know? You didn't even finish the first book. There is character development, particularly with Sam and Frodo, in the later parts of the triology. Read it, then comment.

Had to say this...

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks as cheezy as the first one, period.

Now now kids, sit down and try to enjoy the movie...

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the perpetually lame "what's better college or certifications?" ask slashdot that gets posted at least once a week. That one always starts a big flamefest so you can almost see the dollar signs in the editors eyes before they post it yet again...

Good Vibration

[fishbonez]

I'm really excited about the trailer. But not as excited as I am about my Harry Potter Nimbus 2000 Broom:

"Enhancing the excitement are the vibrating effects and magical swooping and whooshing sounds the broom makes when on."

I never thought playing with a toy could be so much fun. My girlfriend really seems to like it too.

Re:Good Vibration

[kippy]

geeze.

the kid's picture alone is practicaly kiddie porn.

Anyone else getting chimes?

[profet]

I now have chimes playing every couple of minutes on my PC. The Harry Potter Chimes..

What the |-|e|| is going on?

Alternate location...

[MrSeb]

If you're having trouble loading it at a decent pace (or at all, like me), Apple have got a copy (in QT, obviously)

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/harrypottercham be rofsecrets.html

I read all the books in one week

[geek]

I couldn't put them down. I read the final book, all 734 pages in one day. That's how good the writing is.

The second book is probably my favorite which is why I am both excited about the movie and dreading it. I don't think they can do it justice. I already noticed in the trailer several glaring missteps and innacuracies.

I don't think there should be a 3rd movie. The actors, especially the kid who plays Ron, already look to old for the parts. They are supposed to be 12 years old in the movie but look closer to 14-15. By the next movie they will be 13 on film and 17-18 in real life. I couldn't stand to watch if they got replaced. The kids who play Ron and Hermione have done an incredible job. Considering the kid who plays Ron has never acted before in his life, I'd say he's got a bright future ahead of him.

don't bother man

[geek]

The previous poster was a shallow person. You need to have some depth to appreciate HP, as a child or adult. I'm 25 and love the books, I read them all in less than a week. No small feat.

You will never convince this guy to like it, so don't bother. He's hooked on the Godzilla movies and imported Jet Li/Jackie Chan flicks.

Re:don't bother man

[dpt]

You need to have some depth to appreciate HP, as a child or adult

Really? I read the first book due to all the hype, and found it to be predictable and aimed at a reading and comprehension level I would have found insulting even as a child.

But then, I never liked "childrens" books even as a child. Far too patronizing, and that irritated me about HP, too.

So, where's all this "depth" then?

Re:don't bother man

[hoomonkey]

earnest hemingway is regarded as one of the greatest writers of all time, yet his writing is simple and very straightforward. most ages can read the book and understand the story. all ages may not get a deeper meaning out of the stories, but they can read it just the same...

big words and a fancy vocabulary, hiding obscure references all over the place does not make a story or an author great or "deep". simple and straightforward storytelling does not make a story or author childish or patronizing.

you find these stories patronizing in the same way that i find some classic literature snooty and supercilious (i had to look that up). people rant and rave about the hidden meaning in some great peices of litrerature and if you don't get it, then you are an idiot. same as with many people who listen to music or collect art. they draw meaning from ridiculous refrences only to make them look intelligent. that i find more insulting than a childs book that might be a bit predictable.

the main reason that i enjoyed the books so much is that any age group can easily read them and be entertained by them. the author has a wonderful way of painting a scene, and has a great sense of humor. she hasn't limited herself to an age group by catering to either 2 year old kids who can't read or 30+ year old men and women who need to big words and obscure references to feel smarter than everyone else.

Re:don't bother man

[dpt]

earnest hemingway is regarded as one of the greatest writers of all time, yet his writing is simple and very straightforward. most ages can read the book and understand the story. all ages may not get a deeper meaning out of the stories, but they can read it just the same...

No, I like simple and straightforward. What I can't stand is talking *down* to the reader. I couldn't tolerate it as a child, and the first Harry Potter book does this big time.

30+ year old men and women who need to big words and obscure references to feel smarter than everyone else

Ironically enough, I assumed that was what the "depth" in HP was going to turn out to be ... obscure references that only an English Lit major would "get".

Basically, the first book pushed all the wrong buttons with me - obviously written for children, predictable, and patronizing to boot!

*Spoilers HERE BE SPOILER DRAGONS *

And then there was the ending, where *suddenly* HP's chapter (or whatever) suddenly wins the in-school competition. *That* put me off, big time. What's the point of following all the endless side plots into point-scoring during the games and study and so forth, if the author is just going to reach into the book at the end and make whoever they like "win" at the end? Lam0r!

well actually

[geek]

I believe that's coming in book 5. The first books are leading to something wierd. Harry has a duplicate wand to Voldemorts, both from the same Pheonix. They can both speak parseltounge, they look alike. I could go on and on. Considering Voldemort is adopted and Harry is an Orphan, i think there are some real posibilities they are related somewhow.

Re:well actually

[xidix]

More likely, those traits can be attributed to some form of transferance when Voldemort tried to kill Harry. I mean, it damn near killed You-Know-Who, so that would seem to indicate that his "power" for lack of a better word, went somewhere (like into Harry). It would also explain why Harry's scar burns when Voldemort is near. They are linked magically.

While Voldemort was adopted, his lineage is clearly known: his mother was a wizard, his father a muggle. Harry's lineage is also well known. If there is any connection between the two, it would have to be pretty far up the line.

So I doubt we'll be seeing any kind of "I'm your father, Luke" moments come out of books 5-7. If we do, it'll be pretty lame.

Re:well actually

[brain159]

Nope, JKR has already specifically disclaimed this one (and acknowledged the starwars potential) in a TV interview (on long-running BBC kids show Blue Petter, for the anoraks who care).

I can't remember which book but the idea has been raised (probably more than once) that it was the killing attempt on Harry by Voldemort which "connected" them (conveniant "potter-sense tingling" curse scar pains, etc.), rather than being related.

If any cheesy family ties are to be found, I'd expect Harry to be a descendant of Godric Griffindor (his parents used to live in Godric's Hollow, remember...).

Re:well actually

[sab39]

Yup, that's my call also. He's a descendent of Gryffindor on his father's side, and whatserface's "only other accurate prophecy" was that the Heir of Gryffindor would be the undoing of the Heir of Slytherin.

That's why Voldemort says that he wanted to kill Harry's father, but only killed Harry's mother because she was trying to save Harry.

Only problem with that theory is, doesn't that mean that Harry should have inherited the Gryffindor green eyes from his father, rather than his mother? (I'm guessing as to the significance of the eyes, but why else make such a big deal about them?) Maybe that's another mistake like the incorrect order of deaths in GoF, but one that made it into several published books. And maybe the reason for the delay in book 5 is that JKR can't figure out how to reconcile the mistake with the story! Nah, now we're getting into conspiracy theory. But I'd bet money that the first two paragraphs of this post are accurate.

Stuart.

It's just you.

[Shade, The]

I hope.

Re:It's just you.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope so as well. If one is going to write a flame, the least they can do is spell 'Voldemort' right. Sheesh... ;-)

Re:I refuse to watch such inane childish bullshit

[guybarr]

Well, actually it is. Star Wars had an adult theme to it.. war.

wrong. star wars is nothing even remotely like a realistic military film. It is a coming-of-age story with a bit of simple mystics and a technological veneer to it.

for a fair military film, watch S.P.Ryan, or the band-of-brothers miniseries. Apart from ignoring the roles of non-american forces completely, they seem quite accurate. They are films for adults.

I loved star wars when being a teenager, but after being a soldier, it seemed (all the parts, BTW) painfully ridiculus.

Harry Potter ... seemed aimed at 8 year old kids. ...

yes, the movie really did seem so. but not the books. There are adult themes hidden in the HP books (child-neglect, orphanhood, trust of and relationship with authority, inter-class problems, and the interaction of children and adulescent society with the individual). But you need to read at least the first three to appreciate them.

IMHO she did a mistake creating the movie(s). Compared to a book, it is just a lesser medium in many regards.

Lord of the Rings is one thing since there's decent swordplay and orcs,

nice grown-up themes both ;)

but this childish bullshit world of Harry Potter's little wizard school is gay.

I think the Ron-Hermione interaction is far from gay ... But I think the word you were looking for is perhaps "lame". Usual children live in a world were consequences of actions are much less harsh than for adults . In the HP school, this is not always true. I find that interesting, just like I find Tom-Brown's schholdays interesting. To each his own ...

Whoever wrote this movie had to be smoking crack because it's got to be the worst representation of wizardry I've ever seen.

Again, we must have different metrics. The wizardry in HP is interesting in a literary sense. i.e. there is a large body of mythological associations she builds on and takes from.
(In this sense she is the ultimate IP thief ;) )
The same is also interesting in the LOTR books.

Direct link to the quicktime

[Saucepan]

Dirct link to the high rez quicktime is here.

staircases

[geek]

They aren't flying, they're changing and yes they were in the book. Read it again.

Re:staircases

[naoursla]

I had imagined the staircases moving when no one was looking. You would try to take a staircase and find that it has goes somewhere else. The ones in the movie looked like mechanical contraptions. Personally, I really didn't like that part of the interpretation.

Three hours?

[Schnapple]

I've read the first HP book and, though I'm not a hardcore reader, I could probably put away the other three in less than a month, so I'll do the "read book quickly before movie comes out" routine for this one.

That having been said, I noticed that the books get longer and longer, with the fourth one going over 700 pages. At this rate Harry Potter 7 may give War & Peace a run for its money (W&P, BTW, makes for a hilarious gag on the back of your toilet). However, the first movie was three hours long and we all know that audiences don't have an attention span longer than that (myself included). I assume that HP2 will be 3 hours as well, but given the "faithful/not faithful" debate, doesn't it stand to reason that the movie series is doomed to become less and less faithful to the books as the movies have to cut more and more out?

Am I the only one that thinks they shoukd have made the first movie 2 hours and left themselves some room?

Re:Three hours?

[rehannan]

According to a Rowling quote on this page, book 5 "probably won't be as long as book four."

they better hurry

[Anonymous Coward]

They better make the rest of these harry potter movies fast before harry potter goes to that magical place where the macarena, pokemon and ricky martin have been banished to.

agreed

[geek]

I would hate to see it, but i know something will crop up. I mean in book one Rowling spent almost a full page explaining how much they look alike. In book two she did it again at the end when he meets Tom Riddle.

There has to be something to that. I know the transferance part, that was explained in book two in regards to the parseltounge thing. I just get the feeling there was a lot left out. Every book brings up something we didnt know about his past.

Re:agreed

[JCholewa]

> I would hate to see it, but i know something will
> crop up. I mean in book one Rowling spent almost
> a full page explaining how much they look alike.
> In book two she did it again at the end when he
> meets Tom Riddle.

I may be way off kilter, but a few ganglions here and there are insisting to my brain that one of the books either establishes or hints that Harry is distantly descended from a Mr. Slytherin. Do I remember this correctly, or should I attribute this to random neuron firings?

-JC

Looks better than the first movie?

[philovivero]

What, did they hire some actors for this one?

harry knowles

[Anonymous Coward]

harry knowles smells bad.

Return of the King

[napoleone]

If you must know was the finer book of LOR. Doubt that the film would do it justice. As to Hp, why bother.

Re:Return of the King

[NaveWeiss]

Did Frodo find love there? Because frankly, that "mostly men" attitude of Tolkien is freaky.

Re:Return of the King

[napoleone]

No bad hobbits. A third sex cerebral open source/ambient excalibur. Just tripin, Tolkien was a drunk but an imaginative one and non Shakespirian.

me too.

[blank]

i, a muggle, would also would like it to be known that i am not a terrorist and enjoy harry potter very much. i read a book a day. fun!

i will pass judgement on the movie till i see it.

Bah....

[Anonymous Coward]

The Firebolt is much better.

I've heard that somewhere before

[why-is-it]

It will be released when it's done.

That's what they said about Duke Nuken Forever!

Keanu Reeves

[pmancini]

Ok, the Slashdot community basically slammed the idea of Keanu as Superman. But how about Keanu as an older, wiser Harry Potter.

"I know Kung-fu!"

Re:Keanu Reeves

[Zarf]

Ok, the Slashdot community basically slammed the idea of Keanu as Superman. But how about Keanu as an older, wiser Harry Potter.

Strange as it sounds... I actually like this idea. Get the gel from Spider-man to play the adult Hegemony... Heregemoni... Herminimi... you know the mop headed girl. Only problem: Can Keanu even say her name? I sure as Horus can't.

Add Catholics to the list

[Anonymous Coward]

Add to the list, being a Roman Catholic. According to Chick, the Roman Catholic Church is the BIGGEST Satanic Cult!!!