Harry Potter General - /hpg/

Let's discuss the best franchise to grow up with.

Haters will be shot(with avada kedavra).

Real talk, Snape is a way better character in the movies than the books. I don't think Rowling actually knew where the character was going until book 3 or 4.

...

Queenie a CUTE

r/eddit/

>Oh honey, you want me to stick my entire foot in your asshole?
legilimency a shit

wheres the pasta

You mean a tumblr general for one of the dullest franchises 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 r-right
"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.

What happened, /r/books? Did /lit/ kick you out again :((

>only leddit likes Potter

There we go

Post your Pottermore's

...

...

...

crackin

I watched the 8 movies a few weeks ago for the first time in my life, and I really liked them tbqh
should I read the books? or is it a waste of time?

The first book is a little boring.
Books 2, 3, and 4 are great children's books.
Books 5, 6, and 7 are a mixture of good things and bad things.

They're quite good. Vastly superior to pretty much everything else in the "YA" genre. Rowling is really good at writing mysteries and in most ways the books are better than the movies. The movies do handle some things better than the books though.
I highly recommend reading the books.
Post your wand, patronus and Ilvermorny house.

Thanks a lot, lads

You might also want to check out the Illustrated Editions that they're putting out now if you have kids. The first two are out now and the third is coming out this Fall. They're really well done and the Deluxe versions are snazzy as fuck.

bump

...

...

What a wandlet.

hmmm

I haven't seen FB&WTFT yet and I'm not sure I should. I feel like I'm going to hate it and it's going to taint the rest of the movies for me.

Which one of them is the comfiest?

I tend to think the first one is because if filled with such wonder. All the magic becomes less impressive to the characters as the films go on.

Its not the best movie, not at all, but its got the most awe and wonder, which is real comfy for me.

This Second comfiest is Goblet of Fire, even though it's the worst in the franchise.

It won't. It has structure problems but it's a very solid movie with good characters. Colin Ferrell is fantastic and 3 of the 4 main characters are very likeable. It also does a good job of bringing back some of the wonder that the later Potter movies lost.

It's unfortunate that instead of Fantastic Beasts what we actually got was Harry Potter BackStory The Movie featuring Some Beasts.

That's not true at all. The fuck are you talking about? There's no mention of Harry Potter at all since it's set in the 20's.

Harry Potter the series not Harry Potter the character you twit. Instead of a completely unique movie that wasn't beholden to the existing lore they made a movie that was completely focused on referencing those things and people you already know about and setting up the next story that will be even more about those things you already know about.

Anyone remember the hype for the books and the first couple of movies? I was pretty young at the time but I remember it well.

Anyways I've only seen up the 4th movie and read the 5th book. How good are the rest of the movies? Worth the time to watch them? Or should I just rewatch the first ones.

try reddit or Sup Forums mr warner shill

The fifth book and movie are probably my favorite. It has just the right balance of serious plot stuff while still having tons of light hearted magic shit. 6 is awkward because it's starting to get more dark so it's just unbalanced. 7/8 are a bit of a slog but overall still worth it.

But that's such an intentionally obtuse view. Grindelwald was a major figure in wizard history but was only briefly touched upon in the books. Stop being a faggot.
Go back and read/watch them all.
Shill is to Sup Forums what cuck is to Sup Forums.

Who else is gonna get the House-themed anniversary editions?

Go home reject

>if you read you have to stay in /lit/
What's it like being a moron?

Please tell me it's just for Philosopher's Stone the idea of (((them))) making 28 fucking versions of the books is too much

I have no idea.

No because the only books I ever buy are first editions.