Anyone else think Harry Potter is one of the best franchises of all time?

Anyone else think Harry Potter is one of the best franchises of all time?

"Yes!"

"No!"

I'm sure there are many manchildren(also womenchildren) that do

NO

it's plebbit-tier garbage

/thread

One of the dullest!

haha I’m referencing the meme that always gets posted in potter threads lol

I find it stunning how such a stupidly large franchise can have such an exuberant amount of wasted potential

user, you don't have to look up his Wikipedia page. He kinda looks like one.

Of all time? I don't know. Of the last thirty years? Definitely. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has extremely exciting and unique characteristics when set against the others. One of the many consistencies in the series is its excitement and creative use of special effects, which really helps bring the magic alive and the action ert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series wouldn’t be subjected to the bland directorial style he fell into afterwards with War of the Worlds, Minority Report, and Big Friendly Giant. The profitable cross-promotion for her books was really just an afterthought. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-Fast and the Furious series in its refusal of stupidity, inanity, and lack of logic. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though r-right
"Yes!"
The writing is imaginative and comes off of the page; the book is a masterpiece. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character “stretched his legs” rather than using the duller “went for a walk” expression.

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time I saw a child’s eyes come alive with wonder while reading the books. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so naturally attuned to the Jungian archetypes that govern human thought that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a review of Harry Potter by some guy on Sup Forums. He wrote something to the effect of, “Harry Potter is great.” And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read “Harry Potter” you are, in fact, trained to read Shakespeare.

The films weren't that great apart from the first few and that's just because they're charming.

The book series is one of the best franchises ever though. From a literary point of view they don't come close to great literature obviously, but people should stop analysing HP in that way. It's a children/YA book series, and in that respect it is one of the best and most succesful franchises ever. The story grew with the target audience in a way that was unseen at the time. Dislike it all you want, call it childish and inconsistent, but it wasn't a fluke that it did so well and became a worldwide phenomenon

BASED

Based "Yes!" Posters

Don't because it has considered to be one for the dullest franchises on a history for movie franchises. Every episode the follows the boy wizard and he is a pals originated Hogwarts Academy to those fought assorted villains is achieved indistinguishably from others. Aside of gloomy the imagery, series’ only consistensiness is achieved its have empty of for excitement and ineffective used for special affect, everyone to create magic unmagical, to create active seem inert.

The perhaps die were cast what time Rowling the vetoed idea for Spielborg the directing series; herself make sure a series will always only be mistaken of that worked for art this mean anything to anybody? just ridiculously profitablely cross-promotion of woman of books. The Harry Ponter series might be anti-Christoph (or don't), prevent it’s the certainly anti-Jim Bond series on its refusal for wonder, beauty and excitement. Don't individual wants to face this fact. Currently, thankfully, those don't longer take to.

>a-at the least a books was good though r-right
"No!"
The writing are the dreadful; book were terribly. To myself read, I notice this each anytime that character go of that the walked, author write instead the this character "stretched he is a legs. "

Myself begin marketing the in backward for an envelope each anytime this phrase were repeat. Myself stop only after having the mark envelope several dozen times. Myself were incredulous. Rowling mind is then governed by cliches and die metaphors this herself is don't other style for writing. Later myself read that lavish, loving reviewed for Harry Ponter the by same Stephen Keng. Himself write one thing the to effect for, "if these kids am reading Harry Ponter upon 11 or 12, then what time those have older those would do went with in to read Stephen Keng." And himself were quiet right. His were don't being ironic. What time you are a read "Harry Ponter" you are am, on fact, trained to read Stephen Keng.

I have an adverse reaction to the first 4 movies automatically because in 6th-12th grade the teachers at my school would put them on a lot when they didn't have anything for us that day and 2/3 of the people in my grade were referencing it on a daily basis. Same with A Bugs Life, Finding Nemo and Shrek 1 and 2 (although I can still acknowledge the Shrek series as masterful ofc).
Women almost universally love HP still at my age.

>the book is a masterpiece

Harry Potter is good-looking but he's not the most handsome so it's a good franchise but not the best. Aragon is much more handsome.

"Yes!"

"No!"

Honestly, what did you guys expect from one of the dullest franchises in the history of video games? Seriously each episode following the dimwitted protagonist and the easily predictable end cast as they fight the same villain has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the pop-up imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of emotional impact, all to "deconstruct" villains and itself, to insult the player.

Perhaps the die was cast when Kodaka chose to outsource Danganronpa 3 rather than direct it; he made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody. Just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for his games. The Danganronpa series might be anti-/u/ (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-Science Adventure 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 DR2 was good though

"No!" The writing is dreadful; the game was terrible. As I read, I noticed that the ideas of "hope" and "despair" were even more overtly obnoxious than it had ever been.

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time those words was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Kodaka's mind is so governed by cliches and dead references that he has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Danganronpa by the same Kotaro Uchikoshi. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are playing Danganronpa at 13 or 14, then when they get older they will go on to play Zero Escape." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you play Danganronpa you are, in fact, trained to play Uchikoshi games.

Has the pasta evolved so much it's used on Sup Forums and Sup Forums because that's pretty cool

They're not the greatest movies, but considering they maintained a base level of quality and there's only one real bad one, I'd say yeah

still better than capeshit tho

That's not Sharpe.

No. KYS yourself

>"DEH!"

"Yes!"

It's up there as one of the best just for the imagination and worldbuilding.

Which is the bad one?

>It's up there as one of the best just for the imagination and worldbuilding
The calling card of a manchild

>Establishing the setting is bad
What kind of retarded contrarianism is this?

based "DEH!" poster

You can shit on the plot all you want but you can't deny that the setting and worldbuilding are great. The magic boarding school setting is what made HP popular in the first place, and the slowly ever-expanding worldbuilding is what made people keep reading/watching

>an abundance of arbitrary trivia makes a work great
>this is what 'muh worldbuilding' fantasy fans actually believe
When you grow up and move on to literature instead of books you'll see how sophomoric this series is

see
It's not literature, it's a series of children's novels, and as a series of children's novels it does its job well. People like you who think they're literary critics because they read two Shakespeare sonnets and a bit of Chaucer are the childish ones for thinking Potter should even be compared to literature. They are very different things.

The movies are great and meshes well with the amount of story that can be revealed through movie series.

I am disappointed that weak pasta gets posted so much.

>it's a series of children's novels, and as a series of children's novels it does its job well
It isn't even good for children. Sure she got kids to read, doesn't mean they are truly "literate," much in the same way that just because someone's into classical music, if they're just enjoying it for the "catchy tunes," they obviously aren't truly listening to it. Harold Bloom is correct. They aren't truly reading, they're just looking at words and imagining a bad fantasy movie in their heads.

Read literature and then post about it, adult child.

You're just proving my point about how people like you think they know everything about books just because you've read some actual literature.
The Potter books shouldn't be seen as literature in that sense, they have no lasting value, no groundbreaking message, style, or theme. They are entry-level books for children who read them and have fun imagining about that world. As children's fiction goes it's great, it's entry-level and it does its job, it turned a whole generation of children who were disillusioned with books into readers. And a lot of them carried on reading other works and are now reading literature. Potter intrigued thousands of young readers and piqued their interest for the written word, something unseen since maybe Roald Dahl. It doesn't matter whether you or I think it's good lit or not, it did its job.

You are the 16-22 Sup Forumslit/ "patrician" snobby kid who tries to act high and mighty because he read few books from the recommendations on there, yet still stuck having no taste nor an unique developed opinion outside parroting other juveniles on there.