Best franchise ever. A perfect mixture of adventure, horror, comedy, thrills, drama, politics, gothic nature...

Best franchise ever. A perfect mixture of adventure, horror, comedy, thrills, drama, politics, gothic nature, witchcraft and surrealist elements

Dullest

I used to enjoy it until I realized that everyone's motives are fabricated and unbelievable/ came from the mind of a middle aged woman.

"No!"

Dullest meme ever pushed by lotrfags

Not as good as the books, but the books in themselves are not that great anyway. The most generous I could give it as a whole would be a 6/10 for the entire movie series. I mean they are not terrible. Just mediocre.

If I had to say something nice I would say the casting was phenomenal. 90% of the characters were cast absolutely perfectly.

Well its fantasy about wizards. And all it is truthfully is just british self deprecation.
Its basically a dystopia of wizards which is why Rowling wanted Terry Gilliam to originally direct.

>Lord of the Rings for the 8 year olds.
>Best thing ever

wew lad

>No!

A perfect mixture of adventure, horror, comedy, thrills, drama, politics, gothic nature, witchcraft and surrealist elements sounds like absolute master-class entertainment. Unfortunately, very few of these were to be found in 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.

I would say every single one besides goblet of fire blows the books out if the water. Typical ebin teens you complain about rowlings shit tier writing yet you can't even detect good cinema

They are entirely different mediums though so judging them based on anything more than what they solely are is wrong.

Trips confirm

The movies are a really mixed bag. The first two are pretty great adaptations, everything afterwards ranged from "pretty great" to "kinda crap".

In a better world Terry Gilliam would have directed them.

Lotr is for eight year olds lad. How old are you. I saw three of these films in college when they were released. And two in high school. The themes of lotr are as simplistic as possible

>3>7>6>5>8>1>2>4
They actually got really fucking good after the first two

It's not really dystopian. It's a small parallel society that has its own social issues and struggles with human failure but also a lot of genuinely good people doing the best they can.

trips confirm you are enabling a harry potter hating autist who wastes his time posting not about things he likes but things he doesn't

Yes, what I'm saying is that they are both bad. The books are bad literature. The movies are bad films.

They are not terrible. Just not very good in almost every way. And to be honest mostly very derivative and boring.

It becomes evidently dystopian when the tone shifts after voldemort returns and the ministry is corrupt beforr he takes over.

By dystopian I meant in the loose sense that it parallels the british way of life being nonsensical.

the movies havent got a single likeable character. they are all just dicks to each other

Disagree they are better than 90% of the shit this board posts. Half of them are geniunely amazing. Not boring at all. Quite the opposite I could enjoy them anytime

If Emma Watson wans't responsible for my sexual awakening I would not watch any movies after reading the books. Stretching my legs now or going for a stroll or whatever you know the joke

Found the autist

based post and based digits

Stop trying to shill your dead franchise. Just stop.