Slashdot Mirror


Deathly Hallows / OOTP Movie Discussion

At midnight on Friday Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released, ending the ten year run of J.K. Rowling's extremely popular book series. I imagine that there are a few folks here who have already read the book and want to talk about it. Likewise, the movie version of Order of the Phoenix was recently released (a film I was kind of underwhelmed by). So ... what did you think of them? Be forewarned: I imagine the comments will be filled with spoilers.

15 of 1,147 comments (clear)

  1. What did I think of them? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought it was nice that something, even if it was something that I thought was junk, could get kids reading for five minutes.

    Now, if only we could find a way to make them read books like 1984, Brave New World, Catch 22 and Fahrenheit 451...

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:What did I think of them? by uber-human · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called school.

    2. Re:What did I think of them? by aamcf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I had to give a simple explanation, I'd say that JK Rowling isn't as good a writer as CS Lewis, which is why I find myself appreciating the latter but not the former.

      Hmmm. Surely a more simple explanation is that CS Lewis is more to your taste than JK Rowling? The quality of writing isn't a one dimensional thing.

  2. My opinion by Yath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think spelling the title of the book correctly shouldn't be too much to ask.

    --
    I always mod up spelling trolls.
  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Re:Spoiler alert. by Niten · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ah well never mind, I've chosen not to read or watch anything related to potter because it just doesn't interest me, give me something which makes me think and I'm there.

    Good for you! Now why are you in this thread, again?

  5. Re:Should have renamed the film something else... by jlindy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The latest film has the same problem as all the other Harry Potter films The film suffers the same problem that all books over 300pages suffer. That is that the book to movie conversion runs at roughly 150 pages per hour. Any book running over 300 pages is going to suffer at the hands of bonehead editors and the such.
  6. Re:Spoiler alert by NonSequor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They never really mentioned the fact that Griphook kind of got shafted by that. I mean he got the sword fair and square and then *poof* it just appears back in the hat when it's needed.

    --
    My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
  7. Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I put away childish stories at the age of 12. Considering that you look down on a well-written story, and use the slur "gay", I think I want to nominate you for "best reason to encourage reading, EVER."

    Ms. Rowling writes acceptably, and unlike far too many others managed to balance the desire for an "epic" story with one that is "fun." She didn't bother trying to mess around with any deeper commentary, and regardless of what your high-school teacher says, that's a good thing.

    As to fantasy books being "childish" -- so are sports, and yet a majority of adults in the civilized world will get quite excited over at least one "professional" sport.
  8. A few problems... by gshakhn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While the series is enjoyable overall, there were some major problems that ruined my enjoyment of the books.

    Molly Weasley kills Bellatrix Lestrange.
    One of the most feared duelers on Voldemort's side is killed by Molly Weasley? Sure, she's a member of the OotP, but the only spells she had shown in the previous books were household charms. It shows JK Rowling's opinion of a mother's love. But that is going too far in my opinion. Made me laugh when I read it.

    Snape's patronus is a doe.
    I understand that Snape loved Lily, but why does a doe represent Lily? Sure, James (secret!) animagus form was a stag, but that would imply that Snape cared about James. Lily's patronus was a doe, but why would Snape's be the same? I assume Lily's was a doe to represent James (even though a stag would make more sense), but again, that implies that Snape cared about James.

    Gryffindor's sword in the Sorting Hat.
    I thought that Griphook took it? If he cared so much about it, why wouldn't he protect it in some way?

    The Deathly Hallows.
    JK Rowling introduces some super powerful items in this book that have never been mentioned before.
    The Invisibility Cloak was around since the first book, but it was never noticed that it lasted much longer than normal? I'd assume Hermione would read up on it at least.
    Voldemort made the ring a Horcrux without knowing its abilities? With his quest for power, I'd assume he would have at least heard of the Deathly Hallows.
    The wand? An unbeatable super weapon was introduced in the last book in order to defeat Voldemort since Harry couldn't outduel him. And the concept of a wand changing owners was introduced to make sure that Harry owned it? None of this was ever mentioned before? Come on.

    The Taboo.
    So the Ministry can detect when and where a certain word is said throughout the whole country? Why didn't they use it before to find out when someone used the Unforgivables? Or when someone mentioned Death Eaters? Or plenty of other ways it could have been used.

    Harry not moving when Voldemort cast a Crucio on him?
    I understand not screaming, since the pain can be resisted somewhat. But not even twitching?

    The epilogue.
    If she insisted on doing an epilogue to destroy any future books, couldn't she have at least mentioned what happened to the other characters? The Ministry? Weasely Wizarding Wheezes? It mentioned that Ted Lupin wasn't living with Harry, but where else would he live if not his godfather?

    --
    Consciousness - That annoying time between naps.
  9. Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book by Iago515 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    She didn't bother trying to mess around with any deeper commentary

    I'm sorry, but that's one of the silliest things I've read by someone who enjoys the books. She says the books are about death, but I see them as being about racism, particularly the Nazi genocide type. The Dursley's are all about child abuse (not the physical kind, but mental); there is corruption in government, huge amounts on freedom of the press, etc., etc.

    One of the reason's I love the book is because of the social commentary she brings into it without ramming it down your throat.

    --
    Take note, take note, O world,

    To be direct and honest is not safe.

  10. And you are an elitist by DG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This, my high-horsed, elitist friend, is an article about the cumulation of a 10+ year long pop culture phenomenon, in which a series of BOOKS - BOOKS, that one must READ - have reached the heights of popularity normally reserved for much more pedestrian faire.

    In this age of ever-deteriorating educational standards, dropping literacy rates, and a overall lack of mental challenges taken up by our youth, a story about jaded teenagers lining up in droves to buy a BOOK would flash right through science fiction and wind up as fantasy - if it wasn't actually TRUE.

    Kids are reading, and it is cool to do so. This is a triumph beyond whatever "lack of challenge" you perceive in the writing.

    And guess what? The stories are FUN. You're not getting Tolstoy, but you are getting a pretty good yarn with some deeper themes in it. Not every meal must be spinach and cod liver oil. It is OK to have the occasional ice cream.

    Get over yourself and your pretentious attitudes.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
  11. Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book by GaryPatterson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shakespeare is popular. His plays were written for the people in the street, the common men and women. I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that they're not high art, that they don't hold a pretty good mirror to ourselves, even after five hundred years.

    I don't make the claim that Rowling is on par with Shakespeare, but the point stands. Popularity is a completely seperate thing to quality. Confusing the two is poor thinking.

    Popular taste is popular taste. Calling it low taste is elitism, pure and simple. It also fails to substitute for informed criticism.

  12. International Relations by Trentus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have enjoyed reading the books and can't wait to finish the last one, but there are a few things that really bothered me.

    It was all basically centred around Britain. All the wizarding history and what not. Then, in book four, all of a sudden there are other wizarding schools out there. And a few are friendly with Hogwarts. There are suddenly wizards in Egypt and China, and other areas of the world. With a whole world of wizards, why didn't any of the come to aid them in their struggle?

    I know the latest book says Dumbledore didn't get a chance to travel abroad after he left school, but surely a wizard of his stature would have in later years at least communicated with and shared bonds with other great wizards from around the world. Why hadn't he formed friendships with other great wizards? Surely there would be some as skilled as he, or even more so. It just seems that Voldemort was strong enough to be a threat to the entire world. Why didn't Albus send word to other great witches and wizards, telling them he was back, and that they should form a gang to kick the snot out of him?

    Just some of my thoughts after reading the first hundred pages of the last book...

  13. Re:Not a Tolkien fanboy, but... by syousef · · Score: 4, Insightful

    J.R.R. Tolkien more or less invented high fantasy as we know it

    I understand that you like Tolkien but I suggest you take a look at literary history before you make such a claim.

    Epic fantasy/mythology - take a look at the ancient greeks for early work. Ever heard of Homer's Odyssey?
    C.S. Lewis also often gets compared to Tolkien though I'd call his books lighter reading and the Christian metaphors are a little bit annoying.

    Invented languages? Here's a list
    http://www.lib.umt.edu/guide/lang/artifph.htm

    By the way I love neither the Harry Potter books nor Lord of the Rings nor Homer's works. All eventually put me to sleep with the rich detail. (I don't enjoy multi-page descriptions of things I'm afraid).

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer