So the first three books are fun and then it shits the bed from there but what about the movies? Are any of them good...

So the first three books are fun and then it shits the bed from there but what about the movies? Are any of them good? Are any of them shit in a guilty pleasure way like the entire horror genre?

"No!"

The first three are fun and then it shits the bed even harder than the books.

Third one's pretty good.

first two movies are dogshit
third is kino
4th is very good
5 is crap and i havent seen the others

The first three are good. Third is especially great. Four is fun to look at but has terrible pacing problems. Five and six are wastes of time. Seven is the first time any of the characters seem to mature, and eight may be the worst of them all.

They are kino OP, better than the mass amounts of dogshit these plebs watch. Just watch them. Theres many different opinions of favs because truth is they are all good. GoF is probably the worst but its still pretty good. 5 6 7 underrated af and better than the books.

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.

Copypasta aside, the Harry Potter books are actually legit shitty books. I don't know why there was such a Pokemon-esque phenomenon about them. It's just a bunch of uninteresting nonsense and then some litwhos die because it's a very mature and dark book with consequences.

Harry Potter didn't really explode until the films were released and people wanted to fuck Daniel Radcliffe or Emma Watson.

No!

Gets me every time

>Bruno Delbonnel's Harry Potter not being kino

What about that new Mystical Creatures movie?

>Avatar
heh

The movies are actually all good if you grew up with them. So are the books. As a series for children that progresses into a series for teens, it's perfect.

t. born in December 1995

>I don't know why there was such a Pokemon-esque phenomenon about them

Marketability, low barrier to entry, very safe thematically, lots of archetypal shit etc.

My favorite was the third one, I love muh self-contained time travel.
I think the first 3 where good, the 4th one is watchable and the rest is meh/shit.

>The movies are actually all good if you grew up with them

only if you watched them first and read the books later, i always felt disappointed by the movies after the third one

t. born in 1994

The first two are good kid adventure movies. After that they're terrible.

half blood prince is good. took a bit of a more serious approach than the others and was surprisingly fresh

The books are excellent, even better when you had to wait for the next one to come out.

The movies are okay, hit and miss really. But they visualized the world pretty nicely.

>t. 1990

For the same reason there are people who consider this garbage a "classic".

For a while, western civilization was brimming with culture and tradition. There were countless book series, cartoons, super heroes, and traditions for children to enjoy. Little by little the left has torn all of that down, either attacking people for having the traditions or taking them and perverting them into things a parent can't share with their child.

Parents remember what it was like to have things like that though, traditions their parents gave them. They wish they had things like that to give their children. So some garbage comes out, and parents desperately latch onto it because they want their kids to have what they had. So they buy them every Harry Potter book, Twilight, Hunger Games, they take them to see every Disney movie, Elf, Malificent, anything that looks like it might become a classic because if it does they don't want their children to miss out. They rely on their stupid, empty-headed coworkers and what the idiot box tells them "Oh yeah, I spent like sixty bucks on that garbage, if I say it's bad I'm a fool who wasted his money, so IT'S REALLY GOOD AND YOU SHOULD GO SPEND YOUR MONEY ON IT TOO!" I've known girls whose parents bought them every book in the Eragon series because they just wanted them to have SOMETHING. My own brother buys an Elf on the Shelf.

They figure, if they're wrong the fad'll be forgotten in a decade anyway. Anything to shut their kid up for a few hours, right?

are you literally me?

Third one is the best by far, great direction and story.

Probably, yes.

REMINDER that the Harry Potter franchise is a rip off of pic related, and the name "Harry Potter" was taken directly from the 1986 movie "Troll"

1- Miss Cackle's Academy for Witches is a lonely castle, surrounded by forest.
2- The castle is invisible to non-magical people.
3- There is a village nearby the castle.

4- The forest is forbidden to the students.
5- Mildred Hubble comes from a non-magical background.
6- Mildred has two best friends, Maud and Enid.

7- Mildred has a cat.
8- Miss Hardbroom (scary potions teacher) hates Mildred.
9- Elitist fellow student from an elitist family of Witches hates Mildred.

10- Benevolent, warm-hearted Headmistress loves and helps Mildred.
11- The first year students take special lessons to learn to fly with broomsticks.
12- Miss Cackle's Academy was founded by a witch called Hermione Cackle.