Why does Sup Forums praise Prisoner of Azkaban when Half-Blood Prince had so much better cinematography...

Why does Sup Forums praise Prisoner of Azkaban when Half-Blood Prince had so much better cinematography, pacing and no time-warp garbage?

Who the fuck cares it's Harry Potter grow the fuck up

Because half kike prints has an objectively worse plot and is full of teen angst. Plus emma watson was at her peak in 3

Malfoy looks like he's withdrawaling from booze because he ran out and now he's trying to figure out where he's going to get some.

But mommy said he was special

Because the plot of HBP is way too compressed. The pacing is awful.

You should really be asking why Dumbledore didn’t use the Time Turner to go back in time to stop J.K. Rowling from creating one of the dullest franchise 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.

There he is. There he goes again. Look, everyone! He posted it once again! Isn't he just the funniest guy around?! Oh my God.

You're continually trying to compare different pieces of crap when it's all irrelevant because they are both a 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.

>Half-Blood Prince had so much better cinematography, pacing
Are you fucking kidding, mate?

Good intro, shit pic

Aight pic, shit intro

>post copypasta with image with copypasta in it

Why was OPs range ban removed?

PoA has the better ending.

...

someone post the "da!" clip

Half-Blood is forgettable desu, both Azkaban and Goblet are better.

Here we go brainlets.

...

...

...

>low cineIQ pleb is spamming his poorly made garbage grids again
LOL

...

...

>let's judge a film based on stills
>black and white makes it kino
The absolute state of Zachary Keith Hasbrouck