Don't even bother arguing

Don't even bother arguing.

I'm 27 but just started Uni last year and it amazes me how into Harry Potter every 18 to 20 year old.

Pretty dull list.

Well you're clearly not attending "uni" for English.
Are rank lists supposed to get you moist?

As much as I'd like to attempt to, I can't prove you wrong with regard to 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 series’ 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 it’s 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 were 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.

WOW FUCKING BURN DUDE

>tfw to intelligent for proper grammer and syntacks

I'm not reading any of that.

Have a nice thread.

Holy shit. You're right. Never thought I'd type those words on this board.

I've read almost all of those books and it's hard for me to imagine somebody thinking Nausea was superior to any of them

It's just copypasta that a very sad shitposter posts in every Harry Potter thread. It's a joke book ranking and the text lifts excerpts from an old man's dishonest review of Philosopher's Stone.
Hence
>Don't even bother arguing.

Wrong.

Movies:

3>5>1>2>4>8>6>7

Books:

3>6>1>7>2>4>5

>6 and 7 being the worst
Put down the giggle water, fagnut.

>mfw he doesn't stop struggling.

>Trying to decide which flavor of shit you enjoy the most.
I must say post italian shits are my favorite. Way better than the weirdly acidic post mexican shits.

came

>harry potter movies are bad
Nice meme, bro.

> 6 and 7 ANYTHING but the worst

That meme needs to stop. Those movies where shit even if not evaluated as adaptations.

6th and 7th just can't be defended by logic.

Where's Ulysses

>most emotional
>most expertly filmed
>most character development
>fewest/least bad deviations from the books
Nigger what the fuck is YOUR logic?

Never mind I saw it

But where's and has I lay dieing

6 and 7.1 were two of the best, only beaten by 3
IMO:
films:
3 > 7 > 6 > 1 = 2 > 4 > 5 > 7.2
books:
4 > 3 > 1 > 2 > 7 > 6 > 5

Harry Potter: And The Footpussy Of Azkaban

Ah yes the Yates redditor has returned. We're going to have some spring breakers and ogf fun now

>4 > 7.2
Shit taste. Snape's tears/memories alone are better than all of Goblet.

I think Watson peaked in the second one

her writing peaked in goblet, and goblet has the best sherlock holmes style twist, which was what this series excelled at before it copied LOTR with the horcruxes.
oh wait you're tlaking about the film. 7.2 fucks up a lot of things, none worse than snape's tears. didn't show james as a bully, no "MUDBLOOD" scene, complete waste. also, LETS FINISH THIS THE WAY WE STARTED IT TOM TOGETHA and other bullshit like bellatrix exploding.

3>7>6>5>9>1>2>4

>her writing peaked in goblet, and goblet has the best sherlock holmes style twist, which was what this series excelled at before it copied LOTR with the horcruxes.
You have really shit taste, m8.
>oh wait you're tlaking about the film.
Yeah, fuckwit. This is Sup Forums.
>7.2 fucks up a lot of things, none worse than snape's tears. didn't show james as a bully,
They already showed him to be a bully previously. Retreading old ground would have been amateurish.
>no "MUDBLOOD" scene, complete waste.
They didn't make Snape as much of a prick in the movie as he was in the book so it was a complete waste? You're really stupid. Snape was NEVER as much of a prick in the movies as he was in the books, starting with the first fucking movie.
>also, LETS FINISH THIS THE WAY WE STARTED IT TOM TOGETHA and other bullshit like bellatrix exploding.
As opposed to "let's dance-fight in the courtyard like everyone else and make this final showdown as thematically interesting as a star wipe" and... what the fuck even happened to Bellatrix in the book? It was so boring I don't even remember.

> most emotional

Not by a long shot. HP movies depend on the supporting cast. The main cast can't act, let alone convey feelings.

>most expertly filmed

Again no. The pacing was specially terrible on 6 and 7 because, well, essentially because they where inventing shit up instead of adapting.
But even if we left the adaptation out of it for the sake of eliminating the bookfag argument the movies fail at depicting something coherent.
Think about it, Harry just got Sirius killed on the fifth movie (three months before the 6th) he was fucking possessed by Voldemort and yet the movie lacks darkness. Forget about the fact that the half blood prince is barely addressed in the movie... they fail to even properly depict the scenario and accumulation the previous movies where building.

>most character development

Is there?

>fewest/least bad deviations from the books

Now i know you are shitting me. 6th and 7th pretty much invent whatever the fuck they want and have mostly nothing to do with the books.

>Shit Taste:The Post
Holy fuck. If trolling, 8/10.

3 and 6 where better mysteries to me.
6 was specially good (the book, the movie is awful) because after his fuck up and getting Sirius kill Harry really enters a place where he can't trust his instincts no more, he can't keep breaking the rules, so he fully decides to trust on Dumbledore's trust on Snape.

That's what made Dumbledore's death so intense on the books...
Not to mention the whole investigation of Voldemort's and Snape pasts, you know, the actual reason the book is called "the half blood prince"...

Too bad none of that is on the movie. It's just sad how they can say that's an adaptation.

7th is similarly fucked up. Both parts. Not only it doesn't explore Dumbledore's past, they even ruin the climax but then again they had 8th movies and to properly develop Voldemort and they just made him a generic Hitler instead of giving him any depth.

what's wrong with chamber of secrets? that's probably one of my favorites

i work with this 30 something woman who's married and has a phd. she always gives me shit for being young, but she is the biggest harry potter nerd i've ever met.

i'm not sure how since i distinctly remember my third grade teacher reading my class the first harry potter book, but this girl must have been like 20 when this shit came out