Is there any point in considering the artistic merit of yet another mediocre sequel in 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.
That chart makes me so angry. Huxley low tier with 1984 high tier? If they're not on the same tier then they're both straddling the same line between tiers,
The problem is that it mixes categories. Hp is young adult which as a genre all belongs in shit tier, although acceptable for teenaged people to be reading.
If you want to be super snoody about classic rankings then that's fine but throwing other genres into the mix on completely different grading scales is stupid.
18 comments
2 3134552767 2018-02-23
I'm so glad I was too old for those books.
1 NormanImmanuel 2018-02-23
Is there any point in considering the artistic merit of yet another mediocre sequel in 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.
2 cronineight 2018-02-23
Calm down Harold Bloom
1 Mayocide2020 2018-02-23
https://i.imgur.com/RCeKzD8.jpg forgetting the chart smh
2 oshnyve 2018-02-23
i know I'm taking the bait but damn if I'm not triggered anyway
1 aqouta 2018-02-23
That chart makes me so angry. Huxley low tier with 1984 high tier? If they're not on the same tier then they're both straddling the same line between tiers,
2 yourshittytherapist 2018-02-23
It makes me furious to see Catch-22 low tier. Tho Hp belongs where it is
2 aqouta 2018-02-23
The problem is that it mixes categories. Hp is young adult which as a genre all belongs in shit tier, although acceptable for teenaged people to be reading.
If you want to be super snoody about classic rankings then that's fine but throwing other genres into the mix on completely different grading scales is stupid.
1 incineratechicken 2018-02-23
Brave New World was better than 1984, and that’s just objective fact.
1 Neil_Tzedakah 2018-02-23
MFW no Pynchon
1 LightUmbra 2018-02-23
I'm literally REEEEEing over the fact that someone would put the Great Gatsby as being anything other than shit.
1 JustAThrowaway4563 2018-02-23
Ur autistic kiddo. Sorry
1 rewind45 2018-02-23
How do they ban spells in Harry Potter? Isn't just words a wizard says while holding a wand, how can can the wizard police even prevent that.
8 AntiLuke 2018-02-23
They cant, they can only punish after the fact.
5 Going_up_the_Country 2018-02-23
Same way as how normal police prevent people from punching each other in the junk.
4 LightUmbra 2018-02-23
Can't they put magic taboos one words and locate people who say them? I remember that being a plot piece in yhe last book.
1 incineratechicken 2018-02-23
~t. J. K. “Richer than the Queen” Rowling
1 pepperouchau 2018-02-23
How about 1984?
1 BumwineBaudelaire 2018-02-23
Black Panther got the negroes uppity