Books were phenomenal when I was 12. Movies were until...like 4 or 5ish? They obviously made a choice to go darker in the end, and on paper it makes sense, but they failed to capture the important stuff. Like Dobby's death. It hit like a Mack truck in the books, but the movies had so oversaturated us with moments that it was just whatever. Even the end. It could have been so much more jarring had we not been sensory overloaded for the previous hour. I'll hang up and listen, thanks.
>>220141864Your assessment of the series is far too generous, OP. In reality, Harry Potter was (and remains to this day) 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.
>>220141864i think most people grew out of the books as they were being published, i read the later ones out of nostalgia and just remember thinking they were a mess and that she badly needed an editor
>>220142363>no The Art of the Deal in God-Tierfaggot
>>220143631I used to think that they were ghostwritten at some point, until I realized that they would have been better and more coherent if they were.
>>220144065yeah, not a complaint i ever got given how they went. the idea that someone else wrote the earlier ones is more plausible but still not very
>>220142363
>>220144164I didnt realize thats percy
>>220142363Based pasta. Also fpbp. Fuck Harry Potter.
>>220141864Harry Potter is and was always dog shit, it's literally baby's first isukai project: westerner edition.
>>220142363>ayn rand>god tierexcellent bait
>>220144240>isukai project: westerner edition.It's a fantasy series you God damn broccoli head weeb. Kys
>>220141864never read the books, i liked the first two movies after that they became progressively worse and worse
>>220144874it literally has all the tropes of one so it might as well be.>>220144909making the movies edgy certainly was a choice.
Rowling's publishers won the lottery largely through branding what was quite obviously a generic (and largely plagiarized) fantasy series as "young adult literature".
>>220144240it's not an isekai it's a fish out of water story. Wizard of Oz is the baby's first isekai westerner edition
