Harry Potter

What went so right compared to other young adult franchises?

>Hunger Games
>The 5th Wave
>The Maze Runner
>Divergent
>Twilight

All of these are shit, but howEVER did Harry Potter end up being good or dare I say great?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_F._Horn
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Compare the casting.

pent up fan base
long standing fan base

the first book came out in 97. also during a time before internet, so A LOT more kids were reading then. the first movie, 01. You had legions of kids ready to go for the first one.

they will all stay for the ride, so naturally like a tidal wave you pick up more and more kids for each movie, its a gaurateed success

>the 5th wave

How is that even worth mentioning?

the key difference between HP and the others you mentioned is that HP is actually competently written
there's only so much you can do when your source material is essentially a horny middle-aged hambeast's self-insert fanfiction, as is the case with all of those titles that i'm familiar with

Harry Potter was fucking HUGE compared to any of those.

true but how was it worth making?

lol who fucking approved that shit.

so Harry Potter is barely YA shit?

source material
casting

i mean, they started out as kids films/books
the only reason they transitioned into being more young adult type material is because that's what the fans were growing into

>that's what the fans were growing into
And the main cast
The main audience was growing WITH the actual characters

There is a difference between YA books and books written for retarded teenage girls.
Hollywood failed to understand that.

yeah I noticed a shift but even Goblet and Order didn't really feel like Young Adult garbage. It just felt like a movie about teenagers that weren't obnoxious. Maybe it had less pandering or something.

The friendships of Harry and his friends actually felt genuine unlike other franchises.

They felt like coming-of-age stories 2bh.

>Kids reading the actual books, which were pretty much in every elementary and high school from 98 onwards.
>believe it or not the books are pretty well written, as in easy to read well written so anyone can pick them up
>first movie released at a time when parents would bring all their kids to the cinema
>by the third movie the fanbase exploded as everyone starts reading ahead before the next movie
>no poc shit in the casting or plot of the books or movies.
>magic n shit

They waited a couple years before making Harry Potter into films, if I remember they had a very strong solid fanbase even before one was announced, the other YA novels didn't even have that since they basically churned them out one after another.

>image.jpg
fuck off mobileposter

your post was shit and contributed nothing to the thread.

think before you post so you don't spout out horseshit like that.

erogon
cirque du freak
lemony snickers series of bad mishaps

erogon is written like shit, but cirque du freak was a huge dissapointment to me. I loved those books in 7th grade.

I wonder how that Netflix version of Unfortunate events will turn out.

Considering that the source material was awful, bad

is this a joke you subhuman pleb? the entire series is awful! for real its one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the seriesüf only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but itüfs certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books are g-g-good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

/thread

Even if it was pure dogshit they'd still tune in

...

Really good casting. The casting for Snape and McGonnagel was so good I can't imagine anyone else in the roles, and most of the other castings were great too.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_F._Horn
Hes the reason why LOTR is so ""good""

Leave wandkino to the brits.

...