Slashdot Mirror
Review: Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets
Most of the cast is back again for the sophomore film. If you liked them before, you'll like them again, even if the boys voices have started changing and everyone is a little taller than they were last november.
The most substantial new character this time around is Gilderoy Lockhart played over the top and on the money by Kenneth Branagh. Alan Rickman's Severus Snape is practically a bit part here, but Richard Harris's Dumbledore gets a lot of scenes.
The general plot is as follows: Harry Returns to Hogwarts for his second year of wizarding school. He keeps getting signals and warnings that there will be trouble, but he ignores them and goes right on in anyway (Wouldn't you if you had his home life?). Anyway, at school students keep turning up petrified and the legend of the Chamber of Secrets revealed. Beyond that there's a little quidditch, rivalry with the other houses, and a mystery needing solving.
Generic, yes. But it's solidly produced and entertaining. Course I'm right in line for next year because I think the next 2 books are superior to the first 2.
As for the FX, I think they're a bit better than last time around. Especially during the Quidditch matches. The first films game sequences looked bad. Everything looked CG. This time around things are much more convincing. They also tackled Dobby the house elf and did him as a full CG character. The rendering on Dobby is just beautiful. Any still shot from his scenes would convince you that they just filmed a house elf right on set. And the fabric moves really well. Unfortunately the motion is all off. His weight feels wrong. His interaction with the set seems like he's a muppet. Hopefully they can nail him down before Goblet of Fire when there are many house elf scenes.
Anyway, I think this film is weaker than the first one, but I think that mostly this is because the book really doesn't add as much to the larger story. It's a solid movie and it stands well on its own feet, but knowing the bigger things yet to come gets me drooling for the next one. I'm hoping that handing the series off to someone besides Chris Columbus will give it a shot in the arm.
So everyone has to read the books movies are based on? Dumbass. More like why go see the movie if you've already read the book.
Regarding the article all I can say is . . .
Huh!?
Did someone at Slate miss their medication? What utter and total overblown tripe.
Let me start by saying I think that Chamber of Secrets is probably the weakest of the 4 released Harry Potter books. [..]But besides revelations about Harry's connection to Voldemort, I just think the other books are stronger.
My thoughts exactly. Many people (including Chris Columbus) find it the best book though. Funny that.
Most of the cast is back again for the sophomore film. [..] even if the boys voices have started changing and everyone is a little taller than they were last november.
Yeah, it's not like that actually happens in real life...:P
[..]
As for the FX, I think they're a bit better than last time around. Especially during the Quidditch matches.
Thank god, that was my biggest regret about the first film.
[..] And the fabric moves really well. Unfortunately the motion is all off.
It moves but the motion if off? That's probably worse.
[..]I'm hoping that handing the series off to someone besides Chris Columbus will give it a shot in the arm.
Yeah, maybe Peter Jackson....he shure goes a long way to get something right. I think that's what's needed.
Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
Tolkien translates better to film because all his characters are so completely two-dimensional (Except bit parts like Aragorn who barely make one-dimensional). Rowling's main characters have at least some hint of an inner life, and film is too short to show this and the action. But Taco is surely right: the second book is the weakest (and the most childish in the wrong sense) and was always going to be the hardest to rescue in a film.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Let's keep these comments as deep as: -the movie is quite entertaining -the CG was well-integrated with the live-action -it leaves a nice feeling in you when you leave Claiming that the movie is a fraud because the main character isn't as bad-ass as the movie makes him out to be is pointless really. Now, if you had claimed that the *author* was a fraud (albeit talented one) for stealing the character "Larry Potter" from a friend of hers (admittantly, she did create the whole storyline and only ripped the names) then your post might have some value.
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
Just my opinion, nothing more.
Indeed, part of the reason the series is so successful is that Harry is just a regular boy. If he were really something special, then he would be much harder to relate to.
Being an ordinary kid who finds himself in extraordinary circumstances makes his story much more compelling. Children can relate to Harry and even imagine that they too might be Wizards and Witches.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
The "Impatient Parents" edition would be nice. I was dragged off to see "this is the film that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends," last night, and I'm still recovering from the boredom. Two hours and forty one minutes? PLUS 20 minutes of previes and commercials at the theater? How can a parent with young children POSSIBLY expect their kids to sit still during this? The film moved along at a SNAIL'S pace, with at least half of the scenes being irrelevant to the central plotline. I understand tha there was a lot of detail that will lead up to future films, but THREE HOURS? One can't even NAP during this movie because of the screaming children in the theater, the screaming children on the screen, or the screaming voice in the back of one's head telling you to run screaming to pretect your sanity.
Trim off an hour next time, guys.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
"I'm not embarassed to admit that I'm 26 years old..."
That explains a great deal about this website. It's all so clear now.
Even the "exciting" scenes such as the spider's lair or the climactic fight with the basilisk don't have quite the right energy. We're just never convinced that Harry even cares. He certainly never shows fear--just the same wide-eyed blank stare.
The biggest problem with the movie is not just that it's a sequel, but that it doesn't give us anything new. Perhaps that's an inherent problem with the series of books it's derived from--we're limited to the same setting and the same cast of characters. But contrast it to the Star Wars series, where each time we were able to see a new world, with new characters and a completely new adventure. The only new character in this film is the idiotic fraud, Gilderoy Lockhart, played with a gaming effort by Kenneth Branagh. But even Branagh's effort falls short--he's unable to convince us why anyone would have ever fallen for his schtick. Also unanswered is why such an incompetent fool would have been hired at Hogwarts at all.
The special effects were all very competently done, but there was nothing truly "special" about them. I agree with CmdrTaco's analysis of the handling of Dobby--he looks good until he starts to move. Unlike Jar-Jar, however, at least he is necessary to advance the plot of the film. The basilisk was big and scary, and the spiders were icky, but nothing made me gasp in amazement--there was no new rush like I felt with the battle on the ice planet in Empire, or even like the first time Harry used the invisibility cloak in Harry Potter I.
Apparently, I'm also one of the few people who don't fawn over the books themselves [I find Rowling's writing style overly bland and preachy. She certainly doesn't have the command of the language that Tolkein does {and I'm not a Tolkein fan either}], so maybe there's something in the film for fans. Judging from the rest of my family's take on the film [my wife and kids are all big fans], perhaps not. We all agreed that this movie was a big step down from the first film.
ScienceSeeker.org
This is silly. Period. Would you say that "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" is not appropriate children's fare? When I was growing up, that was the scariest movie I saw as a child (in re-release). It dealt with similar problems. What about Cinderella? After all, Cinderella deals with the effective slavery of the main character.
Indeed, we can look to the fundamentalists own book to see that they're slavering hypocrites, because there are parts of the Bible which are "unsuitable for children" because they are so violent.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but if I remember correctly, the "blood" for writing on the walls came *from* the walls (the words formed automatically). Does this differ from the Biblical Writing on the Wall in any way that really matters? Petrification is well-covered in Greek mythology (and is considered age-appropriate for the target market of this film). The deadliness of Nightshade (the plant of which you refer) is a well-known medieval legend.
But the biggest problem I have with what you've posted is the suggestion that Harry Potter's handling of the prejudice against Muggles and "mudbloods" is bad. Sesame Street deals with very similar topics (note the introduction of the Muppet with AIDS in South Africa and the firestorm of controversy there), but what Sesame Street doesn't do is *confront* the reality of prejudice; it *displays* tolerance instead. It tries to short-circuit the cycle of prejudice by influencing children early on (much to the horror of fundies of any stripe). Harry Potter, on the other hand, has acknowledged that prejudice is real and is confronting it head-on by making it so that the bad guys (those of Slytherin) are both generally unsavoury characters and are the ones who demonstrate such prejudices.
Bah.
-austin
Ni bhionn an rath achx mar a mbionn an smacht (There is no Luck without Discipline)
It would have been better at 1:40 not 2:40.
Also, you should stay through the credits for a fun little scene at the end.
A retired bishop says Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings have revealed a need for spiritual experience.
The Right Reverend Jim Thompson says the films show how much fantasies about "another dimension" appeal to the general public.
The former Church of England Bishop of Bath and Wells says people are in search of spiritual experience and vision.
"Part of this perhaps is the re-creation of what has been lost to so many modern minds, namely the eternal dimension central to most religions, especially the Christian faith," he said.
The Bishop was speaking at the presentation ceremony for the Sandford St Martin Trust Awards for excellence in religious broadcasting.
He says he believes broadcasting has an increasingly important role as young people shun organised religion, finding the Church unsatisfactory as a way of "exploring the spirit."
Bishop Thompson's remarks about Harry Potter come after the ecumenical body, Churches Together in Britain and Ireland, urged churches to use Harry Potter a means of spreading the Christian message.
The children's bestsellers have been attacked by evangelicals in the past as glamorising the occult.
Of course, he is retired, and doesn't have to worry about being banished to Bishop of Lossiemouth for saying what he thinks. As for the Fallwells and Robertsons, they were born (again) bent of shape. The problem is when they try to bend the world to fit...
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Supreman, batman all are frauds that way. All movies are fraud. I read the article it is absolute bullshit. The write is indiscriminately butchering the character.
Did your mom love you? Good, maybe you deserve to be a hero, too. The love of Harry's mother saves his life not once but twice in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Not only that, but her love for Harry sends Voldemort into hiding for 13 years, saving countless other lives in the process. The book and the movie should be named after Lily Potter. But thanks to the revisionist histories of J.K. Rowling, Lily's son is remembered as the world's savior.
I found the writer weird. The kind who see conspiracy in everything!My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
when it comes to "elitism". OK, a few lowly hobbits gets to save the world; but have you looked at the human society? Humans are divided in different branchs of different purity, valiour ect. Not only is the inate superiority of Aragorn and his kind taken for granted all along, but I clearly remember at least one passage where Aragorn explicitly states that the humans groups can be divided in three... barbarians (the Southerners for exemple), more noble humans but still figthing for fighting's sake (such as the Rohans), and the true nobles races like his, who only fight to defend freedom ect. Worse, take the whole royality thing... In Tolkien's world, the Intendants of Gondor do not become, ever. Only the "true heir" whose ancestors left the kingdom ages ago is fit to do that. OTOH, in HP there is a very clear difference between having inate magical powers and being good, and it is perfectly possible to become a great wizard while coming from a muggle family. True, either you are gifted or you arent... but that's true of life as well in many domains. HP would only be "elitist" if it implied that being a muggle, or having muggle parents, is bad in itself. Not only is that never said, but the problem of racism is tackled head on, and is a central part of some of the books. Now, don't get me wrong, I love the LoTR. But some aspects of it are clearly elitist. And no, HP is not elitist, rather the contrary. Just my 0.02
What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
The rating on the movie is "PG", its warning you that it might not be appropriate for younger children. If you don't think your seven year old is mature enough, or has the bladder for it, preview the movie yourself first.
~Noodle
Wow, nice troll. And it's scoring 5, Insightful.
You do have a (weak) point, though, about Tolkien's characterization (although, *cough* I find it laughable that you'd suggest that Rowling does anything other than caricatures). I would argue that the richness of Tolkien's world is not in the characters but in their vast history, which is only barely hinted at in LOTR. Not to mention, Tolkien's work is fundamentally preoccupied with heavy theological issues, like good and evil, whereas the charactizations are of secondary importance.
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
Batman a fraud? Hardly... spend the time training, find a way to get the money, and get a strong enough drive to want to do so and you can be Batman! This is something I've always felt made him a well-liked character... he doesn't have any super-powers, he's just an above-average person who pushes himself and has a bit of a problem with street crime.
This is an unfair criticism, in my opinion.
We just watched the first movie again last night in preparation for seeing the second movie with my 11 year old today. I'm reminded of quite a bit that Harry does in this story.
Harry makes decisions and acts on them that risks what he could reasonably consider to be grounds for expulsion from Hogwarts in several places. Remember that expulsion from Hogwarts would put him back under the stairs on Privet Lane.
For example:
Recall also that it was Harry's decision to go protect the Sorcerer's Stone, which he had been warned would risk death.
I'm not a big Harry Potter fan, that would be my 11 year old daughter in my family. If I had to order them, I wouldn't place the first book as my favorite. I would agree that Harry shows less initiative in the first book when compared to the later books, but this actually makes sense considering his suddenly learning about his heritage and falling into the fantastic world of Hogwarts. That would overwhelm any 11 year old, don't you think?
If Harry had shown any more initiative, it would have strained credibility. Granted, this is Fantasy, but you still have to construct a world that can be rationalized.
The close-ups of the phoenix made it look like a prop from a 60's monster movie. Very disappointing considering ILM was involved.
"Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. They tell children that dragons can be beaten"
Test your net with Netalyzr
The replies to the parent post seem to run mostly in the vein of "it's a fantasy flick, get over it". Given that the parent poster did say that the movie was fun and that misgivings about the movie were on the level of discomfort, I find most of the reply posts to be oddly over-reactive. If the parent had said that nobody should feel good about this movie, or that he was unable to enjoy fantasy movies anymore, then THAT might have warranted a "get over it" reponse.
:)
Suppose a child came up to you and confessed to feelings of inadequacy because of how dissimilar Harry P's life was to the child's. Some kids would be talking about the fact that they couldn't fly and turn invisible, and those kids would benefit from a talk about reality vs fantasy. But other kids would be talking about their inability to relate to the mindset and achievements of Harry... questions like: how does Harry know what to do all the time, or how can I be more popular like Harry? In these circumstances it would not be beneficial to lecture on the distinction between brooms and gravity. What's called for is an articulation of motivation, achievement, and what measures of worth should be applied to a person. Maybe the referred-to article went further than a broom-vs-gravity person would like, but to dismiss it altogether is to miss a real (like it or not) psychological dimension of the movie that has the potential to shape young minds. And if people at our age can't discuss it, even with a nod to having enjoyed the movie, then we're setting ourselves up to be empty handed when someone comes to us for advice.
Now I can't enjoy fantasy movies ever again.
.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
It's amazing how many people ignore the fact that PG means "Parental Guidance" and refuse to bother doing the necessary research to provide that guidance.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Wow, precisely what I wanted to say! The linked MSN article says that Potter is great only because of what others have done, yet it ignores that Potter himself is constantly embarrassed by his fame. It may be less clear in the movies, but I thought it was clear in the books that he doesn't think he deserves his fame.
...is a grave, mistaken assumption to have.
Not to mention - the series isn't finished yet. He's still a boy learning about life, who just recently learned (4th book, I believe) of his mother's sacrifice for him, and we have no idea what accomplishments or sacrifices he might choose to make in the final book.
Until the series is over, people shouldn't really be criticising Rowling for social statements made through the Potter series - as of now, I regard it as incomplete. It's as if I were to say:
Part 1: Rich people are better than poor people...
Part 2:
If you only hear part 1, and know that Part 2 exists, you shouldn't judge my views based only on Part 1...
In all events, it's nice that HP has little kids and certain 20-somethings reading books!
;-), "Lord" Valdemort the pretender. It is symbolic that chess was so central to the first movie.
Yeah, Star Wars tends towards monarchistic themes ("Princess Leia" isn't just because she's prissy) with a vague nod toward representative democracy in the vile (IMHO) prequels. But then monarchies are the stuff of romantic legend, and Star Wars is very romantic. Luke is the lost knight, etc.
Star Trek always *acted* like it was a meritocracy (kind of like America) but I had to wonder. Rarely did we get to see a washout, and while we were assured everyone was the best of the best they didn't seem to work at it very much -- too many adventures to take. Yet they were always innovating things in the field that "had never been done before" even by the weenies back at the labs.
Also, did you ever notice how everybody in the power circles knew each other, even though they were flung across the galaxy? It seemed very buddy-buddy. Don't tell me there wasn't an elitist component, and that Starfleet ran in families without the effects of influence.
Well, uh, back to Harry Potter -- what happened to all the wizard-wannabes "not good enough" for Hogwarts or its sister schools? Do you really want a bunch of magic school dropouts hanging out and causing trouble? Rowling should lok at this more in a later novel -- "Sorcery and its Discontents." At least in HP, unlike SW or ST, you really do see people STUDYING!
HP has monarchistic themes, too. Dumbledore seems very much like the King, McGonagal the window-dressing Queen (I think Dumbledore is gay
How does Christianity fare in these three epics? Poorly. No wonder the fundies are holding bookburnings. (Really, the religions ought to be strong enough not to worry what isn't said about them in these fables. It's just for fun.)
The following is based on my reading of all the books which qualifies me as well as anyone else to describe what Harry is and is not. It also is written with the assumption that the article linked is not merely a joke of some sort.
"Simple: He's a glory hog who unfairly receives credit for the accomplishments of others and who skates through school by taking advantage of his inherited wealth and his establishment connections"
As anyone who has read the books knows Harry has always been uncomfortable with his fame. He also happens to be very sympathetic to Ron's and others financial situations and hardly worships money. If there is one thing that is central to the entire series and that Harry learns is the value of friendship and how wrong excluding and judging others is. He never asked to be favored by Dumbledore, but he also happens to not have a father since his was Murdered. You'll excuse him from wanting to form a tighter relationship with the one adult figure in his life that he knows truly looks out for him.
I love how the author also sides steps the 12 years of mental abuse and terrible living quarters Harry had endured. The fact that he isn't an Arsonist or Molester is a credit to him.
Harry while being full of natural talent is NOT a showoff. He also would risk his life for another without hesitation and actually does so in the books. How are these qualities not worth emulating?
"Harry Potter is a fraud, and the cult that has risen around him is based on a lie. Potter's claim to fame, his central accomplishment in life, is surviving a curse placed on him as an infant by the evil wizard Voldemort. "
Umm, every story has to has a beginning. To harp on that one point is to ignore future meetings where he actually does do battle with Voldemort and many others standing on his own two feet not knowing if any assistance is forthcoming. That is real courage.
"But thanks to the revisionist histories of J.K. Rowling, Lily's son is remembered as the world's savior."
Why? Its Harry who goes on to save the world over and over in future books, just like any hero in a series does. Assisted or not Harry is the one who is the driving force behind seeking out and fighting new threats as they come up. Its obvious to anyone with even basic reading comprehension he'd rather hang out with his friends and play Quiddtich then fight evil. He never asked to be hero.
"Being a wizard is something innate, something you are born to, not something you can achieve. As a result, Harry lives an effortless life. "
More of the same. I don't know what books this person has been reading, but Harry's life is hardly "effortless". Any Privilage granted to Harry later in life doesn't take the place of action, and Harry's actions speak for thmeselves. What's with this person's need to find a mortal flaw with Harry? Fantasy is called Fantasy for a reason. Is he supposed to die or something? Is someone here too jaded or jealous or something?
Lastly, I just don't get adults complaining or criticizing Harry Potter. This particular book series does something that not many others have. 1) it gets kids to read, which is incredibly important. 2) it give adults a series which while aimed at children, respects the adults who will be reading it. 3) it forms common ground between adults and children which when competing with MTV and the Internet isn't so easy anymore.
I'm sorry but people who criticize Harry Potter are looking way too much into it. These are the same people who look back into classic children's works and want to find sexual innuendo.
Sorry wackos, but Harry Potter has done way too much good to be brought down by people like you.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Gandalf could kick harry potter's candy ass clear into the next time zone...
Assuming, of course, he got the chance, and Gimli doesn't just lop the annoying little prat's head right off beforehand.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
It is exactly for this reason that you probably liked *cough* *cough* Star Wars when you were small -- Luke Skywalker is exactly the same character and plays to the same wants and desires.
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
The first movie was entertaining because we got to see Harry Potter and Hogwarts on the big screen. The story itself was nothing special. Harry didn't know much if any magic, they beat a troll by dumb luck, and nabbed the Sorcerrer Stone from Voldemort by Dumbledore's clever charm on the mirror. The first movie, like the first book, was designed to introduce the main characters and display some of the fantastic world of the magical. The Sorcerrer Stone was telegraphed from the moment Hagrid told Harry he probably shouldn't tell anyone at Hogwarts about the small package in the you-know-where vault.
The second movie, by contrast, was able to gloss over nearly all the character introductions and get to a storyline which was much more mysterious and suspensful (at least in the book) than anything the first movie/book could muster. Granted the location doesn't change, but it's hard for me to believe we've explored all the rooms and grounds of Hogwarts in the first movie!
While I do not think the second book or movie is as good as the stories to come, I think it has a much more interesting story than the first film. Unfortunately, due to time constraints (don't want to keep those kids immobile for more than 2h45m), there was a lot of material left out of the second movie that was in the second book. Particularly the fear and suspicion surrounding Harry after he speaks Parseltongue to the snake during the duel, and a fair amount of hilarity from Ron's broken wand that just didn't make it to the final film. While reading the second book, it almost made you doubt whether or not Harry was the heir of Slytherin, but that was not brought out in the movie much at all.
Perhaps part of the reason people think the first movie is so much better is because more of the book was able to be shown in the film. Even though parts did get cut out (like the entire Norbert story and the whole reason why it was important that Neville stood up to Harry, Ron, and Hermione), the book was shorter and more easily compressed without losing substance. I think one of the downfalls of every book after the first (getting worse as you progress) is that there is more book and more story to fit into the same amount of space.
I'm looking forward to the next movie, but I'm afraid it may get hacked up even more than this one did simply to keep the film under 3 hours long.
Cheers!
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
In the HP universe, magic is a technology. Nowhere is there an indication of forces or powers or gods that cannot be thoroughly understood and dealt with. There are good people, bad people, and people you're not too sure about, but they're people, using tools.
Rowling plays with classic symbols of the supernatural, yes. But she doesn't invest them with supernatural meanings. She takes away the mysticism and makes it mundane.
Christianity depends on the illusion that there's a big, scary otherworld out there that you can't find out much about, but you should worry about. Rowling will have none of that. In the wizard world, unexplained supernatural events are problems to be solved. Everybody in the wizarding world understands this. They may disagree on goals or methods, but there's absolutely no "there are some things man is not meant to understand" posturing by anybody.
Nor is there "faith". Wizarding requires skill and inborn talent, but you don't have to "believe". It works whether you believe or not. That, of course, is the fundamental difference between science and mysticism.
For fundamentalists, this is unsettling. It knocks the props out from under the stage set of religion. That drives fundamentalists nuts.
Isn't that the whole point of why it's so succesfull amongst the over 26's. In everyones adolescent fantasy, we all want to be rich, a jock and have lots of admirers. Sure its a "Hollywood" , but so what.
P.S. I am more than 2x 26 years. so I enjoyed it twice as much.
Semper ubi sub ubi
This is pretty much the reaction I would expect from the established crocks, either try to co-opt it or anathematize it. Fortunately, Potter's world does not yield gracefully to either treatment. It seems to have no room for or interest in a god-figure, and none the worse for that. Witch-smellers looking for Satanic influences have a primitive two-valued logic, and could hardly avoid being alarmed. Unfortunately for them, Potter's world is far more colorful and interesting than anything that they have to sell. Unless, of course, you really relish the idea of eternal damnation, and that pretty much tells you all that you need to know about them.
I read them, and was consistantly dissapointed by the triumph of carictature over character. ... Am I being unfair to a set of "children's books?"
/. geeks, so we act a certain way--but we also act other ways, as well. But if someone could only see me when I post on /., they'd have a mere two-diensional take on who and what I am.
Yes, you are. The Harry Potter series is a modern-day fairy tale whose only plausible social effect is to make more children enjoy reading.
You are being far too hard on Rowling. Everyone's a carictature, we're just MORE than that. You and I are
Real characters in fiction only show up with the passage of time and real events--and the only possibilities for real characters in Rowling's work are Harry Potter and his immediate friends and teachers, who show up in greater detail throughout each book.
I've been an avid reader of fantasy since I was about 12, and I have yet to find a book that, by itself, changed my life. The books help shape my imagination and help me cultivate the aspects of myself that I like--but they're doubly passive members in my growth, because if the books didn't have something that appealed to me, i wouldn't read them like I do.
Harry Potter probably isn't "Great" children's fiction or even adult fiction--but that's all the better. It's entertaining, enjoyable, and not offensive in the least. In short, as Stephen King put it, "They're fun books."
I think the superficiality of the slashdot crowd is apparent with the Harry Potter phenomenon. There a million slashdot readers that are all slobering to be the first to prove their Alpha Geekness by insulting N'Sync or Brittany Spears when the chance comes up. But when it comes time to prove that they have some taste that goes beyond the shit the Hollywood media culture is feeding them, they lap it all up like everyone else.
Ah, but here you are betraying yourself in your own post. Hollywood is a place where movies with budgets get made--it's neither a home of all-quality movies, nor is it a place from whence quality never comes. For every three artificial stars we see from RIAA or MPAA, there's at least one who's worth listening to.
This presumes that children are incapable of "resonating" with adult themes, something I think is certainly not true. While children may not be able to articulate their intuitions, I think we sell them short if we assume that children can only relate to a sanitized, morally two-toned imaginary world like HP.
In that way it's much like LOTR or Dune
I disagree. HP is not at all like either LOTR or Dune. What HP lacks is not the moral certitudes -- both LOTR and Dune are pervaded with crystal clear notions of good and evil -- but the moral ambivalences which make people so human, and characters like Harry Potter so much less than that. The reason Frodo stands (figuratively) head and shoulders above Harry is because, in the end, he fails, or more, because he tries and fails. In LOTR, it is the struggle which makes Frodo a hero, despite his failure. In HP, it is circumstances which turn Harry into an accidental hero. But Harry never really struggles.
Harry is primarily a hero by happenstance. Frodo's heroism is, precisely because of his struggle, much more human than Harry's, and therefore much more compelling. Even for children.
Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan, ROC
"I read them, and was consistantly dissapointed by the triumph of carictature over character."
In a lot of instances, you're right. But three big ones stand out proving you wrong:
1) Hagrid. A large, clumsy, not-so-bright oaf. But he's also one of Harry's dearest friends and, while not attractive on the outside, has a heart of gold.
2) Severus Snape. I can't think of any character in the series who is described in less flattering terms, except maybe Voldemort himself. Snape is constantly suspected by Harry and Company of being Evil Incarnate, but, while he strayed in his youth, he's now a stand-up guy. He just doesn't like Harry because of history between himself and Harry's father (actually, the author of the MSN article parrots a lot of Snape's complaints, now that I think about it). In the latest book, he's sent off on a mission by Dumbledore that is strongly hinted as being a suicide mission, and he does it bravely.
3) Draco Malfoy. This guy is the epitome of what the MSN author describes as a pampered and privileged jock. Malfoy is described as being very physically attractive, but is nothing more than a spoiled brat. In fact, he and Harry's cousin would get along famously, if Malfoy weren't such a racist pig about non-wizards.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
It's not just you, quiddich is a sport that was clearly designed to be a sport that appears to be a team sport, similar to European Football, but in actuality is a convient way for Harry to demonstrate his HEROness.
Quiddich could be a truly exciting and awesome game, IF catching the snitch simply ended the game (none of this 150 points nonesense). That way, each team member would MATTER because if one team is behind and the snitch appears, the losing team has to pull together and gain points while their seeker tries to delay their opposite's catching of the seeker.
That rule modification would make for some really exciting, nailbiter scenes in which, say, Harry's team is down by 20 points. The snitch appears. Harry knows that he can't catch the snitch UNTIL his team pulls up those 20 points, so he tries to stay inbetween the snitch and the other team's seeker. His team knows that he can't keep the other seeker from the snitch forever, so they rally and try to score those 30 points. The other team knows that it is only a matter of time until their seeker can grab the snitch, so they play hard defense to keep Harry's team down until their seeker is able to do so.
There. Exciting, TEAM sport. Harry's role would still be important, and the book/movie scenes would be much more exciting because the entire team would be involved.
Of course, the only reason Frodo got to be the ring bearer in the first place was because he was the favorite relative of a rather unusual and famous (rich too!) hobbit who also just happens to give him a magic sword and mithril mail. Also doesn't hurt that he has a wizard/demi-god at his back to get the ball rolling either.
It could also be argued that the only reason a hobbit makes a good ring bearer is because, in general, they are a simple and contented folk whose biggest cultural conundrum is which pipe to bring to the latest social gathering. Look at Gollum. He gets it and the best the ring can cajole him into doing is living in a cave for a looong time.
Face it, Frodo is a hero because he's got the support and when it finally comes down to crunch time he does the heroic thing just like Harry Potter. Saying that one is more deserving of the title than the other is sophistry plain and simple.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Do it. Especially if you're kids have the vaguest interest in it. Fantastic geek bonding experience. Even if they don't, the books are still really fun stuff (not as good as Niven or Twain, but still great). They're quick reads, except that by book four Rowling begins suffering from Steven-King-Epic-Tome-ititus. I hope her editor grows a set of balls and starts editing again in book five.
Harry Potter is supposed to be this great and powerful wizard, but his friends at Hogwarts always seem to be saving his ass?
In the first book, Rowling was just using it as a crutch to make Harry a hero as quickly as possible, just as she made the "150 points for the seeker" rule in quidditch. It's a cheap trick, but no harm done as it got the setting going quickly so she could jump immediately into the meat of the tale. Thankfully, she turns it into the fame vs. reality theme in later books that other posters talk about (in the book the kid with the camera [Collin] has a much bigger role and makes Harry's life abject Hell with all the hero worship).
Anyway, don't rap her for it. I'd bet anything she's regretting the heck out of the "150 points" thing and some of the other hero trappings now that she's living with it over several books. No surprise of course - it's doubtful she was expecting even the first book to get published. It's like people who condemn Tolkien as racist for his protrayal of Orcs when in fact he was just looking for expendable, "red shirt" style bad guys. Short term decisions often don't stand up to long term scrutiny. Thankfully, in entertainment that can be forgiven.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."