American audiences

>American audiences
What are some other films that were dumbed down or changed because Americans can't be trusted to understand things?

>a kids book
>toodeep4u

Is this an autistic euro or a drink Aussie?

>they thought a book with "Philosopher" in the title wouldn't be marketable to children
This probably shouldn't be pinned on Americans, but rather, the stupidity of executives everywhere

>had to change the name of a book because an entire country of people were assumed to be too stupid to understand the word philosophers
Lmao. You sure showed me

>it was fine to be marketed at children elsewhere
>it was a major hit all over the world despite not changing the scary adult word
I'm sure it has nothing to do with American education

And you know about the American education system how? Campuses in the US have massive amounts of foreigners. You're making a big deal out of a meme that doesn't affect you.

>he thinks this is an argument
Shoo shoo amerifat, they even released it with the original name to third world shitters, how embarrassing for you

Imagine what Spielberg would have done if he made an animated Harry Potter with an american setting.

>Joe McWizard goes to Supermagical Junior High inc.
>First class is Dark Arts of the Jesus prayer
>McWizard becomes the quarterback of Magical scooter football
>Every day there's magical McDonald's appearing out of nowhere in the cafeteria
>Instead of sinful magic they teach the intelligent design
>Evil Lord Al Gore wants to steal the Jesus stone and use it to destroy all cars

>bashes the US over the title of a kids book
>too ashamed to admit where he's from
I don't care for an argument. I just want you to know this thread is dumb.

I can understand the executives' decision to dumb it down, after all "The Philosopher's Stone" is a title too sophisticated for what is part of one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises. Seriously 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.

Australia. Not that that has anything to do with it, I'm not from America and therefore it was assumed I was capable of understanding words

honestly probably wouldn't have been much different than what we got, considering chris columbus is generic spielberg

>that comfy feel where tsundere Euros are constantly thinking about America and comparing everything to America without being prompted

C-CUTE!

>Inb4 the "dullest franchise" copypasta

Ghost in the shell.

classic pasta
that aside i never understood why she vetoed spielberg, but approved of his much less talented former protege to direct

Yeah defend a series where the author willingly changed the name to sell more copies. Does anyone else think Harry Potter has been 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.

I wish I had a reason to think about Australia but I'm sure glad something as arbitrary as a shitty kids book doesn't trigger me into an autistic rage for a place I've never been.

Don't worry friend. I'm sure your education will catch up one day, i'm sure you'll eventually be able to look at your children and know they understand words. It's all just a matter of time, don't let it get you down.

>Draw conclusion
>Gather data
>Prove hypothesis
Even the scientific method is upside down in Australia

Maybe she didn't want him to be synonymous with the franchise so people would put more focus on the movies rather than the director. If he was involved, it'd just be Spielberg, Spielberg, Spielberg and how he was gonna approach it. It would be viewed more as a Spielberg movie rather than just the first in a series of movies. Bring in a director that's not a household name and more people will focus on the movie rather than the director's vision.

hitler dubs. i accept your theory

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.

lmao. if you want your education system to improve you need to take the first step user, no use crying about it to me

(you)

Based dullest franchise poster

wew he did it