Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Harry Potter strikes back

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the dobbie-doesn't-like-that dept.

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."

58 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Better than the first movie? by tcc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    --- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
    1. Re:Better than the first movie? by alexjp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

    2. Re:Better than the first movie? by DaytonCIM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Better than the first movie? by epukinsk · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

    4. Re:Better than the first movie? by denshi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Better than the first movie? by Vegan+Pagan · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. Re:Better than the first movie? by epukinsk · · Score: 2

      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

    7. Re:Better than the first movie? by denshi · · Score: 2

      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.

    8. Re:Better than the first movie? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    9. Re:Better than the first movie? by deblau · · Score: 2
      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?

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    10. Re:Better than the first movie? by fr2asbury · · Score: 2, Informative
      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

    11. Re:Better than the first movie? by why-is-it · · Score: 2

      (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...

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    12. Re:Better than the first movie? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  2. Re:Chamber of secrets? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2
    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.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  3. Secret Chambers. by _ganja_ · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --

    A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security

  4. Work of the Devil by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    1. Re:Work of the Devil by puff-d-dwaggie · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      "Satan, God's OTHER Son!"

    2. Re:Work of the Devil by Fished · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    3. Re:Work of the Devil by zerocool^ · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      sig?
    4. Re:Work of the Devil by Maul · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

  5. Curmudgeon death blow by Demona · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Fuck Slashdot
    1. Re:Curmudgeon death blow by Verteiron · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    2. Re:Curmudgeon death blow by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

    3. Re:Curmudgeon death blow by cheese_wallet · · Score: 2

      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.

    4. Re:Curmudgeon death blow by Animats · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:Curmudgeon death blow by cheese_wallet · · Score: 2

      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.

  6. Much more interesting stuff on AICN by ajs · · Score: 2, Offtopic
    I'm shocked this is the latest AICN story in a while!

    Here's some other tidbits from the site:

    Among many other interesting stories. The only problem is their "talkback" system will make you long for Slash or PHPNuke ;-)
  7. This is the SECOND trailer by Masem · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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).

    --
    "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
    "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
  8. Hopefully the effects will be better this time. by -douggy · · Score: 2

    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

  9. "Muggles, start your crossover plugins." ?? by samoht · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  10. When does Darth Vader... by Wag · · Score: 4, Funny

    announce he's Harry's father?

    1. Re:When does Darth Vader... by cei · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
  11. Harry Potter vs. LoTR by NaveWeiss · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Slashdot community, please notice: I am looking for a girlfriend.
    Nave H. Weiss
  12. For those without crossover by pardasaniman · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  13. Opinions, I got opinions... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... 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.

    --
    Infuriate left and right
  14. Re: Crossover by Nailer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

  15. Re:Chamber of secrets? by The+J+Kid · · Score: 2, Funny

    I want Harry Potter 5!

    It will be released when it's done.

    --
    Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
  16. This is great by JFMulder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  17. Trailers by Raetsel · · Score: 2

    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.)

    --

    "...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
  18. Re:Chamber of secrets? by beamdriver · · Score: 2, Funny
    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.

  19. Did anyone else think... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

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

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:Did anyone else think... by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      ...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 :-)

  20. Re:Chamber of secrets? by JFMulder · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  21. Re:Chamber of secrets? by erat · · Score: 2

    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?

  22. Good Vibration by fishbonez · · Score: 2, Funny
    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.

    --
    Frylock: That's not a toy!
    Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
  23. Re:Chamber of secrets? by JFMulder · · Score: 2

    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.

  24. It's just you. by Shade,+The · · Score: 2

    I hope.

  25. Re:I refuse to watch such inane childish bullshit by guybarr · · Score: 2


    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.

    --
    Working for necessity's mother.
  26. Re:Chamber of secrets? by Hast · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.)

  27. Re:Are you CRAZY? [AC reply / nvws] by Hast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  28. Three hours? by Schnapple · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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?

    --

    Schnapple

  29. Re:well actually by brain159 · · Score: 2
    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...).

  30. Re:staircases by naoursla · · Score: 2

    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.

  31. Re:well actually by sab39 · · Score: 2

    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.

  32. I've heard that somewhere before by why-is-it · · Score: 2

    It will be released when it's done.

    That's what they said about Duke Nuken Forever!

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
  33. Re:Chamber of secrets? by Hast · · Score: 2

    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.

  34. Keanu Reeves by pmancini · · Score: 2

    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!"

  35. Re:Chamber of secrets? by Hast · · Score: 2

    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.)