Harry Potter & Deathly Boredom?

[Michael]

They're back...

http://www.bscreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/harry-potter-stars.jpg

The movie opens tomorrow (I believe) and advanced reviews are all coming out and surprisingly enough, most of the reviews are negative.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 – review

They've ditched Hogwarts, hurling our trusty teenage trio out into the wilderness – could we be getting to the point at last

At the end of the last Harry Potter film, this series began to succumb to a bad case of what the industry calls the "Matrix Revolutions". This is suffered by films that owe their existence purely to a marketing franchise momentum that has long since outlived the original creative excitement. The chief symptom is a mythically elaborate, spectacular, apocalyptic and fantastically dull confrontation between good and evil, about whose representatives there is nothing substantial left to learn. The Harry Potter brand was evidently set to run a grim headless-chicken marathon right through its two remaining films to the bitter end.

Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/nov/18/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-1-review)

And that's from the UK's Guardian - and one of the nicer reviews! :lol:

It will be interesting to see some feedback from regular movie viewers rather than the musings of jaded insiders of the film industry who are never a reliable guide to good entertainment anyway.

[WFCY]

There is no reason to watch this Harry Potter besides Emma Watson is in it.

Same reason I watched some of the other ones. I also enjoyed watching that french chick who played fleur delacour.

nobody gives a toss about the story, the fact they are silly brits, or magic.

[Michael]

There is no reason to watch this Harry Potter besides Emma Watson is in it.

Same reason I watched some of the other ones. I also enjoyed watching that french chick who played fleur delacour.

nobody gives a toss about the story, the fact they are silly brits, or magic.

I happen to have enjoyed all of the previous movies. :)

I think they were very good and light-hearted entertainment. It wouldn't surprise me if the franchise gets overblown given that they are on the 6th or 7th film now.

[dilettante]

One can hardly blame the movie(s) for the "mythically elaborate, spectacular, apocalyptic and fantastically dull confrontation between good and evil, about whose representatives there is nothing substantial left to learn." That problem comes straight from the later books of the series. I almost didn't make it through The Deathly Hallows, but I have a thing about completing sets and couldn't bear to leave the last of seven unfinished. The last several books are way too long, and while the characters get older they don't actually develop any throughout the series. Harry begins as a likable hero-type who suffers from misfortune and saves the day and he ends as precisely the same sort of likable hero-type who suffers from misfortune and saves the day. Snape begins as a somewhat sinister character who may or may not be a good guy, and lo and behold in book 7 he's STILL a the same somewhat sinister character who may or may not be a good guy. The same goes for the rest of the characters. There's a stab at evolving romantic relationships, but they're forced and don't make sense (and annoying for anyone but an angsty teenager).

So you get a lot of "mythically elaborate, spectacular, apocalyptic" stuff to try and take the place of character/plot development. The other books at least had their own little mysteries to try and keep things moving (Who is the Half-Blood Prince? What's in the Chamber of Secrets? etc...), but in the last one you're just waiting to see how the blasted thing ends. And it takes 700 pages.

Anyway, I'll probably go see the movie with my little sister; she's a fan of the books and, well, I've seen all the other ones, and I have that thing about completing sets. :shrug:

EDITED: All that said, the production value of the films has always been quite impressive. I can enjoy a certain amount of "mythically elaborate, spectacular, apocalyptic" special effects, even if they don't have an interesting plot to back them up. After all, I enjoyed watching Avatar.

[Margot]

Yeah, that's sort of what my reaction to the book was like. There's no real objective or plan, and everyone's just walking around getting pissy. It's an accurate representation of the age group. I just happen to hate that age group.

We'll see. I think I'm going with my sister to the premiere tomorrow.

[Margot]

Also:
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/10/6/128677918460759115.jpg

Once seen, cannot be unseen.

WFCY, you're right. Emma Watson is attractive.

[WFCY]

That pic is shopped btw.

I dont have any aversions to Dawkins, in fact, one of my fav popular science writers.

And as much as I enjoy calling ppl fags, I am not terribly opposed to the idea of gay secks. Havn't done it tho.

[Margot]

That pic is shopped btw.



Obviously. Still, it's like a stereotype--founded in something, after all.

[WFCY]

yeah, I've seen it before. no biggie.

[MeMyselfAndI]

:)

I remember when first Harry Potter books were sold here. Children went crazy over them. The movies too. It's still strong. When they showed the last movie here, theaters were full, people sat on the steps lol

Many have now forgotten, shamefully, that we have our own Harry Potter.

Her name is Tanya Grotter
http://petrovka.ua/thumbs/65165----.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter

In 2002, Dmitry Emec decided that Russia should have its own children's book, like HP, that our children can relate to better. So, he made Tanya lol

13 books plus 2 spin off novels :D they were going to sell it in Europe too, but Rowling sued for copyright. Shows her level of maturity, you know, how much she really cares about children. Aside from the name, btw, it is all very different. All the magic, the characters, are based not on some British mythology, but on ancient Russian fairy-tales. And the game they play is far more badass than Quiddich: Dragonball. Instead of a net, you throw a ball into a dragon's mouth. Seriously. Takes Russians to come up with this stuff :) And there is, particularly as they get into their teens, alcohol, some (mildly) sexual stuff. This is a RUSSIAN school remember hahaha Oh, and also, Potter has a scar on his forehead, and Tanya has a tiny spot on the end of her nose.

We even have computer games based on those books
http://static.hitv.ru/2/screens/b0d48922463eb81be88a3fec7fb0c007.jpg
http://static.hitv.ru/2/screens/e399cb735237767ff5a4a09b1a2eb76d.jpghttp://static.hitv.ru/2/screens/1a832b355e2c1e9fed3ca7eb32fb3da4.jpg

The school is called Tibidokhs, it is a reference to the spell used by Baba-yaga, most famous (and ugly) witch in our mythology; it is on an island, Buyan, that's from another old tale; and they have a pet three-headed dragon, Goryn, again from a story about Zmei Gorynych, the three headed dragon whom our greatest hero, Ilya Muromets, had to fight to prove himself as a warrior.

Personally, my children will read Tanya Grotter, not Harry Potter. It is not nationalism, it is patriotism :D

[Donkey]

They've ditched Hogwarts, hurling our trusty teenage trio out into the wilderness – could we be getting to the point at last


Hardly the fault of the movie producers...

[Non Sequitur]

My problem with the series is that she killed all the characters I liked by book 6. Never read book 7 cause there was no one i enjoyed reading about.

[dilettante]

My problem with the series is that she killed all the characters I liked by book 6. Never read book 7 cause there was no one i enjoyed reading about.

Well, if you really don't like the characters that are left, there is something of a mass slaughter in the last book. 20+ characters, at least a dozen of them significant, bite the dust in one way or another. It actually felt a little silly by the end.

[Michael]

My problem with the series is that she killed all the characters I liked by book 6. Never read book 7 cause there was no one i enjoyed reading about.

Well, if you really don't like the characters that are left, there is something of a mass slaughter in the last book. 20+ characters, at least a dozen of them significant, bite the dust in one way or another. It actually felt a little silly by the end.

:eek:

I only read the first book several years ago because I was curious about the mechanics of magic and mythology Rowlings was drawing from. Basically, in my opinion, its mostly a mix-mash of Celtic-Germanic-Nordic, with the magic system seemingly based on D&D mechanics, and Rowlings own flourishes added in.

Anyway, I'd heard that a few characters were going to die off in later books, but I had no idea it was a veritable slaughterfest! :erm:

[Donkey]

:eek:

I only read the first book several years ago because I was curious about the mechanics of magic and mythology Rowlings was drawing from. Basically, in my opinion, its mostly a mix-mash of Celtic-Germanic-Nordic, with the magic system seemingly based on D&D mechanics, and Rowlings own flourishes added in. Imho she develops quite nicely throughout the series.



Anyway, I'd heard that a few characters were going to die off in later books, but I had no idea it was a veritable slaughterfest! :erm:

She gets a bit jiggy there at the end.

[Michael]

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/218953/thumbs/s-DANIEL-RADCLIFFE-EMMA-WATSON-large.jpg

Daniel Radcliffe: Emma Watson Kisses 'Like An Animal'

LONDON — Daniel Radcliffe was expecting a tender embrace when it came time to kiss co-star Emma Watson in the new "Harry Potter" film. What he got was torrid necking, Watson working magic with her lips "like an animal," he said.

"I thought it was going to be like a soft, sensual sort of moment, and it was this very vigorous kissing scene," said Radcliffe, reprising the title role in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1," the second-to-last of the big-screen adventures about the teen wizard, which opens Friday.

"She really went for it, I have to say. It caught me slightly off guard, but yeah, I'm not complaining. Many men would lose a limb to be in that position, so I was absolutely fine with it," Radcliffe said in an interview.

Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/15/daniel-radcliffe-emma-wat_n_783471.html)

That's one thing about this whole Harry Potter series I never understood (though, like I said, I only read the first book). I always figured that Harry and Hermoine ought to have been 'the couple'. :shrug:

[Margot]

Bah!

Hermione and Ron all the way.

I never understood how Ginny wound up being Harry's girl, but I would have never paired Hermione and Harry. Too alliterative in both name and character.

[Donkey]

Bah!

Hermione and Ron all the way.

I never understood how Ginny wound up being Harry's girl, but I would have never paired Hermione and Harry. Too alliterative in both name and character.

Yeah, definitely not Harry and Hermione. I always felt that Harry and Ginny were a little manufactured, but to JKR's credit, she developed it since book 1.

[Zarquon]

I read all 7 books, and have watched all six movies so far.
I probably outgrew the series around the order of the phoenix (book 5), but kept going, as, like dilettante, I like to finish what I start, and I was curious about how it would end.
I didn't like any of the movies after the second one, may be because I was a literalist fan. But i still went to all the movies, first day, if not first show. After the fourth one, I just did it ought of a sense of doing it for the sake of finishing it, like with the books, and because, it was a useful ritual to revisit old memories and evaluate how much I had grown up.
All that being said, however, I'm hesitating to see this one at all, as I've really outgrown the formulaic, "epic", fantastical, pg-13 movies, and the "catharsis" they provide.
So I might catch it on my laptop ("wink, wink") sometime later, but I didn't catch i today. But, its also going to be Thanksgiving Break soon, and I might just end up going.

[The Drunk Girl]

I'm planning on seeing the movie on Sunday. At least my money won't be spent on Twilight *insert barfy face*

[Margot]

OK, I actually thought it was a good movie.

I barely remember the book, since the last time I read it was the day it was released in one five hour stint of HP-fueled madness.

I thought it was well done, and not at all boring.

And the Harry/Hermione kiss? Dayum.

[Michael]

I barely remember the book, since the last time I read it was the day it was released in one five hour stint of HP-fueled madness.
This is why I never crammed for exams or bothered to study at all at university.

I have to read things at a slow or measured pace or the data retention factor is darn near zero. :shrug:

I speed-read through stuff when I'm looking for information/research.

I thought it was well done, and not at all boring.

And the Harry/Hermione kiss? Dayum.

Glad to hear the movie is good. I've never seen any of them in the theaters - I usually see them a year or so later when I borrow the DVD from one of my small army of teenaged nieces (that well is starting to run dry - several have migrated off to college now and only one is under 16 now).

[Donkey]

From what I've heard from a diversity of sources, it's the best HP film yet. I mean, that's not exactly competing against the best of the best, but I'm looking forward to seeing it.

Edit: incidentally, I think it is interesting that, regardless of intent, all of the books have a strong anti-authoritariasm theme. Starting with standard fare misbehaviour and ignoring teachers in boarding school, but by the end it goes well into discussing the accidental evil of a too-strong government.

[dilettante]

Taking my sister to see it tonight. I'll let you know how it goes.

[evanescence]

I've never seen movies last longer than three in a series before it begins to suck. They butchered the fifth book in the movie. And personally, I hated Rowling for killing off Sirius Black. She killed off everyone of my favorite characters and then she made Harry Potter a weakling for the rest of the series. It started off great, then turned mediocre. Now it sucks.

I have to say the same about Resident Evil. The fourth movie was terrible. It seems like most movies these days have practically no plot and most of their "substance" is special effects. The movies that have a plot are rip offs from older movies.

[Donkey]

I've never seen movies last longer than three in a series before it begins to suck. They butchered the fifth book in the movie. And personally, I hated Rowling for killing off Sirius Black. She killed off everyone of my favorite characters and then she made Harry Potter a weakling for the rest of the series. It started off great, then turned mediocre. Now it sucks.

I have to say the same about Resident Evil. The fourth movie was terrible. It seems like most movies these days have practically no plot and most of their "substance" is special effects. The movies that have a plot are rip offs from older movies.

I don't think HP and Resident Evil are remotely comparable in this sense. The HP books are working on an existing story, one by one. They hare hardly going to steal plot from other movies.

[evanescence]

I don't think HP and Resident Evil are remotely comparable in this sense. The HP books are working on an existing story, one by one. They hare hardly going to steal plot from other movies.

So is Resident Evil. It is almost exactly the same as the video game.

[Donkey]

So is Resident Evil. It is almost exactly the same as the video game.

But again, no matter how much plot a video game has (I know, they do have plots), it is still based on ACTION. A movie based on a video game is a dangerous venture to begin with. The closest you get to video-game style action in a book is a choose-your-own-adventure (which I hate, incidentally).

[evanescence]

But again, no matter how much plot a video game has (I know, they do have plots), it is still based on ACTION. A movie based on a video game is a dangerous venture to begin with. The closest you get to video-game style action in a book is a choose-your-own-adventure (which I hate, incidentally).

My husband is a video game head and he says that the Resident Evil movies are nearly the same as the video game.

[dilettante]

Taking my sister to see it tonight. I'll let you know how it goes.

Well, that was remarkably what I expected it to be. I haven't read the book in years, so I don't know precisely how closely it followed the text, but the general experience was very much the same. Where I thought the book was interesting, the movie seemed interesting; where I thought the book was boring (e.g. camping scenes) the movie was pretty dull...etc. All those places from the book where I thought "what the heck are they thinking?!?!" were there in the movie to. In general, I suspect that those who enjoyed the book will enjoy the movie. The special effects are fairly good, though I was annoyed that the previews show a dragon and the movie doesn't have one (must be in part 2). IMO, if you advertise a dragon you darn well better deliver a dragon.

Other thoughts:

1) RE: the Harry and Hermione kiss - Ok, I remember that scene from the book. But I didn't recall them being naked while kissing. That aspect of it was...unexpected.

2) Pretty much every time I've read or watched Harry Potter, I've thought to myself, "Why the hell don't any of these wizards carry guns?"

[evanescence]

Well, that was remarkably what I expected it to be. I haven't read the book in years, so I don't know precisely how closely it followed the text, but the general experience was very much the same. Where I thought the book was interesting, the movie seemed interesting; where I thought the book was boring (e.g. camping scenes) the movie was pretty dull...etc. All those places from the book where I thought "what the heck are they thinking?!?!" were there in the movie to. In general, I suspect that those who enjoyed the book will enjoy the movie. The special effects are fairly good, though I was annoyed that the previews show a dragon and the movie doesn't have one (must be in part 2). IMO, if you advertise a dragon you darn well better deliver a dragon.

Other thoughts:

1) RE: the Harry and Hermione kiss - Ok, I remember that scene from the book. But I didn't recall them being naked while kissing. That aspect of it was...unexpected.

2) Pretty much every time I've read or watched Harry Potter, I've thought to myself, "Why the hell don't any of these wizards carry guns?"

Wait..I thought it was Hermione and Ron. :shrug:

[dilettante]

Wait..I thought it was Hermione and Ron. :shrug:

<Spoiler>
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
It is in the end. The Harry & Hermione kiss is in a "vision" of sorts; it doesn't actually happen in the storyline.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
</Spoiler>

[evanescence]

<Spoiler>
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
It is in the end. The Harry & Hermione kiss is in a "vision" of sorts; it doesn't actually happen in the storyline.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
</Spoiler>

Must have missed that. I read all seven books.

[Tom Palven]

Yeah, definitely not Harry and Hermione. I always felt that Harry and Ginny were a little manufactured, but to JKR's credit, she developed it since book 1.

I thought that Harry and Cho Chang would have been a great match, and that Hermione was a little too good for Ron, and would have done better to have married Ron's surviving twin brother, George. (Had Fred lived, I would have had her marrying both of them- one of the many reasons I don't make the big bucks.)

[Donkey]

I thought that Harry and Cho Chang would have been a great match, and that Hermione was a little too good for Ron, and would have done better to have married Ron's surviving twin brother, George. (Had Fred lived, I would have had her marrying both of them- one of the many reasons I don't make the big bucks.)

Eh, Cho was a first crush, or first serious romance of a young teen. How often do you marry the girl you "date" when you are 14?

[Margot]

I feel like Cho was present for, like, four pages.

[Tom Palven]

I feel like Cho was present for, like, four pages.

As I recall, she was pretty and bright, down to earth, and a quidditch natural, even though she was playing with a second-rate wand. You do agree, however, that Hermione and the Weasley twins would have been a great item, don't you?:)

[Michael]

As I recall, she was pretty and bright, down to earth, and a quidditch natural, even though she was playing with a second-rate wand. You do agree, however, that Hermione and the Weasley twins would have been a great item, don't you?:)

I think the Weasley twins would have been a much greater item as 'twincest'! :lol:

[Margot]

As I recall, she was pretty and bright, down to earth, and a quidditch natural, even though she was playing with a second-rate wand. You do agree, however, that Hermione and the Weasley twins would have been a great item, don't you?:)

Naw. She and Ron were made for one another. She's uppity and kind of likes the moral superiority of exasperation, and he likes her slightly maternal twinge.

It was a match written by the gods.

As for the twins? They're mine.

[Tom Palven]

I think the Weasley twins would have been a much greater item as 'twincest'! :lol:

Well, why couldn't it be twincest with Hermione doing kind of a Hugh Heffner role-reversal thingy? Oh, no!... I can now envision Hagrid's "big-boned" girlfriend getting into the act...

[evanescence]

How about Harry and Luna?

[Donkey]

How about Harry and Luna?

Another flash-in-the-pan never-got-off-the-ground childhood crush.

[evanescence]

Another flash-in-the-pan never-got-off-the-ground childhood crush.

-they're all childhood crushes.

[Donkey]

-they're all childhood crushes.

Whereas the meaningful relationship with Ginny is at LEAST more developed throughout the series.

[Michael]

Well, since we're on the topic of appropriate matchups, one thing about the whole Harry Potter thing that makes no sense...

Basically, Harry himself is a major celebrity, rather wealthy and the star of the Quiddich team. By any reasonable standard of private schools, that puts Harry Potter pretty much 'top tier' of the social pyramid. Except, the movies all seem to portray Harry and his friends as 'third tier -social outcast' types. That makes no sense.

However, it is that same rubric that seems to explain the Ron & Hermoine connection. If I'm not mistaken, Hermoine is 'low-born' for wizards. For her, marrying into Ron's family is a definite social improvement, since Ron's family has status and her's doesn't. That would explain why she's not with Harry - Harry Potter is way out of her league by wizard-school social standards.

[evanescence]

Harry's mother was a "mudblood". For some reason, Rowlin pulled a lot from racism and similar themes.

[evanescence]

Whereas the meaningful relationship with Ginny is at LEAST more developed throughout the series.

More developed, certainly.

[Margot]

Well, since we're on the topic of appropriate matchups, one thing about the whole Harry Potter thing that makes no sense...

Basically, Harry himself is a major celebrity, rather wealthy and the star of the Quiddich team. By any reasonable standard of private schools, that puts Harry Potter pretty much 'top tier' of the social pyramid. Except, the movies all seem to portray Harry and his friends as 'third tier -social outcast' types. That makes no sense.

However, it is that same rubric that seems to explain the Ron & Hermoine connection. If I'm not mistaken, Hermoine is 'low-born' for wizards. For her, marrying into Ron's family is a definite social improvement, since Ron's family has status and her's doesn't. That would explain why she's not with Harry - Harry Potter is way out of her league by wizard-school social standards.

Ah, but you're ignoring the active renunciation of that status, beginning with book one ("Not Slytherin!") and carrying on throughout the series.

And Harry is subjected to the implications of his fame on multiple occasions.

[Donkey]

Ah, but you're ignoring the active renunciation of that status, beginning with book one ("Not Slytherin!") and carrying on throughout the series.

And Harry is subjected to the implications of his fame on multiple occasions.

Yes. Rowling drives it home every once in a while. In his immediate social group nobody gives that much of a shit, but every once in a while, she'll have people all in aw of him and whatnot. Just not folks that he knows well. And not folks that hate him.

[Michael]

Ah, but you're ignoring the active renunciation of that status, beginning with book one ("Not Slytherin!") and carrying on throughout the series.

And Harry is subjected to the implications of his fame on multiple occasions.

Yes. Rowling drives it home every once in a while. In his immediate social group nobody gives that much of a shit, but every once in a while, she'll have people all in aw of him and whatnot. Just not folks that he knows well. And not folks that hate him.

Y'all seem to be overlooking my actual point. People here have been talking about 'dating-couples'. I was pointing out that by any 'normal' standard, Harry himself would be #1 Lord of the Elite Clique at Hogwarts, with the pick of just about any girl he wants (due to his status, wealth, fame and Quiddich stardom).

This is sharply contrast (at least in the movies) by portraying Harry (and his friends) as the misfits and semi-social-outcasts of Hogwarts. For example, that big Triwizard Ball thing - poor out-cast Harry was hard-pressed to come up with a date. That's just too unbelievable in reality for the star of the Quiddich team. Hasn't anyone studied the social dynamics of private schools? Even as a junior or sophomore, Harry Potter would be part of the elite social set at Hogwarts - whether he wants it or not. That's just the way teenage-level schools work.

I'm just pointing out that Rowlings appears to have made an error there - even though she probably did it make a better and more attractive story. The whole thing seems odd to me because of this and as a result, the story-arc is forced to fit the narrative design which seems rather fake/forced rather than natural.

[evanescence]

Y'all seem to be overlooking my actual point. People here have been talking about 'dating-couples'. I was pointing out that by any 'normal' standard, Harry himself would be #1 Lord of the Elite Clique at Hogwarts, with the pick of just about any girl he wants (due to his status, wealth, fame and Quiddich stardom).

This is sharply contrast (at least in the movies) by portraying Harry (and his friends) as the misfits and semi-social-outcasts of Hogwarts. For example, that big Triwizard Ball thing - poor out-cast Harry was hard-pressed to come up with a date. That's just too unbelievable in reality for the star of the Quiddich team. Hasn't anyone studied the social dynamics of private schools? Even as a junior or sophomore, Harry Potter would be part of the elite social set at Hogwarts - whether he wants it or not. That's just the way teenage-level schools work.

I'm just pointing out that Rowlings appears to have made an error there - even though she probably did it make a better and more attractive story. The whole thing seems odd to me because of this and as a result, the story-arc is forced to fit the narrative design which seems rather fake/forced rather than natural.

She made many errors-and killing off too many characters and making Harry a pathetic weakling is just a couple that come to mind. As far as his popularity, it could be apart of his character not to be ultra popular. Remember, he's a hero. An actual hero who cares about other people. No popular jock, douche bag could ever fit that description.

[Michael]

She made many errors-and killing off too many characters and making Harry a pathetic weakling is just a couple that come to mind. As far as his popularity, it could be apart of his character not to be ultra popular. Remember, he's a hero. An actual hero who cares about other people. No popular jock, douche bag could ever fit that description.

Oh I certainly agree that Rowlings made Harry precisely the way he was in order to make him a suitable hero for her epic series. It obviously worked very well and I'm not criticizing Rowlings for that at all. Fiction is fantasy afterall. I suppose, if I am making a critique here it is to say that the Harry Potter books really are 'teen-fiction' for young-adults and not really suitable for a sophisticated adult-audience. (Now that should stir up some responses!!!) :D

I'm only making the point since we were (playfully) discussing 'appropriate' mate-pairings for the characters and the point about social heirarchy of elite private schools seemed relevant to that topic.

[Margot]

I'm only making the point since we were (playfully) discussing 'appropriate' mate-pairings for the characters and the point about social heirarchy of elite private schools seemed relevant to that topic.

Again I say, Harry Potter actively renounces his claims to fame at multiple junctures. There very theme is, in fact, a main feature in Hogwarts life.

Rowling created a character who could A) think for himself and B) be easily excluded from the social hierarchy that you're citing.

Not only does Harry not want to be a star, but he lives in a universe where only people older than he view him as such. Think about it, Harry is bowed to, coddled, and adored by the adults in the book. However, all of his peers are subjected only to parental hearsay.

Hogwarts is a place where very small populations cluster together (everything already broken down into a preexisting segregational hierarchy of houses, grades, etc). The story is told with a focus on the Gryffindor house, and in that sense, Harry does have the chance to really make his own way. His peers are now no longer subjected to the parental prejudices of their homes, but are faced with a real life Harry Potter.

And in real life, Harry isn't some ego-centric star. He's an understated guy. I remember when I first started playing violin, I was in love with my teacher's son. He was such a good musician, and he was attractive, and I thought he was, you know, a star. When I got to know him, however, I realized he was all insecure and bumbling and adorable in a completely different and totally not-crushworthy way. I got to know the person, not the preconception.

Notice how we never spend time in the other three houses. What do they think of him? Doesn't matter. Harry is isolated both by his house moreso than by his status. If we look at the one or two interactions that happen with Harry or his friends with people outside of the Gryffindor house, these interactions are fueled primarily by either romance (Cho's "wet" kiss), or by catty high school bickering (enter Draco Malfoy, et al.). Both the romance and the high school bickering are fueled (at least in part) by the very stigma you say is lacking!

By the time Harry is even interacting with anyone outside of Gryffindor or Slytherin (good/bad dichotomy FTW), he's already been in school for, what, three, four years? That's plenty of time for him to cease being a novelty around the school, and to start being just another face. Harry is so isolated in the first books that it is easy to imagine that house loyalty, and not star-struck crush, would take precedence in the lives of these students.

I think to say that the social structure of an average private high school is applicable here is doing a sort of disservice to Rowling. It's not because Hogwarts is a school for witches and wizards, but because Rowling took the time to create a character and a setting (which, we must remember, is just another character), that can interact with one another in a way to create the outcome you say is implausible! She balances the status of Harry Potter against his personality, and against her own unique creation of the perfect incubator.

[Donkey]

Iawtp. :)

[dilettante]

I can see some justification for excluding Harry and his gang. He suffers from what my family calls "Jessica Fletcher syndrome," based on the character from Murder She Wrote. Basically, wherever Fletcher went on the show, you knew someone around there was going to be murdered in the near future. In real life we figured that people would pick up on this trend and make every effort to avoid being near her.

Same with Harry, perhaps? If my kids were going to school with a boy who was being hunted by a nameless force of ultimate evil and who had an uncanny knack for finding himself in ludicrously dangerous and horrifying situations, I'd tell them to give him a wide berth. I don't see him being invited to too many birthday parties.

[evanescence]

Oh I certainly agree that Rowlings made Harry precisely the way he was in order to make him a suitable hero for her epic series. It obviously worked very well and I'm not criticizing Rowlings for that at all. Fiction is fantasy afterall. I suppose, if I am making a critique here it is to say that the Harry Potter books really are 'teen-fiction' for young-adults and not really suitable for a sophisticated adult-audience. (Now that should stir up some responses!!!) :D

I'm only making the point since we were (playfully) discussing 'appropriate' mate-pairings for the characters and the point about social heirarchy of elite private schools seemed relevant to that topic.

Iawtp. :)

Well, as always, your ops provide us with so much to discuss. :) And I really hate abbr. ukpwutar

[Greendruid]

I think part of the problem of discussing this at all is the confusion entered into by discussing the book storyline within a movie thread. The movies are very much condensed versions of the books and if someone hasn't read the books, one would be left with many questions about social details that aren't presented in the movies. I'd like to comment on both now.

I thought that the most recent installment of the movie series was well done. Indeed, there are multiple camping scenes but these have purpose for building the plot-line so I don't find them terribly boring. Besides, if it was all spell flashes and combat it would be too much. One has to save that for the big battle at Hogwarts to come in Part II. I couldn't remember the Harry and Hermione kissing scene from the book either but it was used brilliantly in the movie to underscore Ron's insecurities and the truly clever nature of Voldemort's curse of the locket. He is after all the most powerful evil wizard of all time and I'd expect nothing short of a brilliant self-induced illusion to be the perfect trap. While there are certainly elements missing from the movie that are rife in the book (the whole back story to the house elves and Hermione for one) I don't think all of this would translate well into the film medium. I was disappointed in the lacking of some details but that's just my thorough reading and building of scenes from my imagination as I read the books.

As for the book series, I think Rowling is brilliant and she created a brilliant hero character in Harry Potter that will be celebrated for generations to come. I will certainly be reading them with my son as he comes into middle childhood. The character development is sublime if you can manage to divorce yourself from your own adulthood for the duration of the read and become a child again. Seriously, for those of you who think that the character development is childish, well, that's the audience it was intended for. I think that she managed to illustrate the world of pre-teens and teens very, very well. Comparing screen Harry to book Harry or screen Hermione to book Hermione is a fool's game in many ways. Hermione is not pretty in the book - she's a nerd. Emma Watson missed the mark on this as she aged on screen into a very different person and actress. Not her fault :shrug: Harry's character is popular but the screen version doesn't portray that very well. Besides, confidence is not a trait that most teens have in spades. Even the accomplishments of "the chosen one" can be squashed by the nerves of asking a girl to a dance or realising that your best mate's sister is attractive. At any rate, I think that the two are comparable but that one must take into account the difference in media and the intended audience. For us to comment as adults without forgetting we're adults is a bit foolish.

[Margot]

I think part of the problem of discussing this at all is the confusion entered into by discussing the book storyline within a movie thread. The movies are very much condensed versions of the books and if someone hasn't read the books, one would be left with many questions about social details that aren't presented in the movies. I'd like to comment on both now.

I thought that the most recent installment of the movie series was well done. Indeed, there are multiple camping scenes but these have purpose for building the plot-line so I don't find them terribly boring. Besides, if it was all spell flashes and combat it would be too much. One has to save that for the big battle at Hogwarts to come in Part II. I couldn't remember the Harry and Hermione kissing scene from the book either but it was used brilliantly in the movie to underscore Ron's insecurities and the truly clever nature of Voldemort's curse of the locket. He is after all the most powerful evil wizard of all time and I'd expect nothing short of a brilliant self-induced illusion to be the perfect trap. While there are certainly elements missing from the movie that are rife in the book (the whole back story to the house elves and Hermione for one) I don't think all of this would translate well into the film medium. I was disappointed in the lacking of some details but that's just my thorough reading and building of scenes from my imagination as I read the books.

As for the book series, I think Rowling is brilliant and she created a brilliant hero character in Harry Potter that will be celebrated for generations to come. I will certainly be reading them with my son as he comes into middle childhood. The character development is sublime if you can manage to divorce yourself from your own adulthood for the duration of the read and become a child again. Seriously, for those of you who think that the character development is childish, well, that's the audience it was intended for. I think that she managed to illustrate the world of pre-teens and teens very, very well. Comparing screen Harry to book Harry or screen Hermione to book Hermione is a fool's game in many ways. Hermione is not pretty in the book - she's a nerd. Emma Watson missed the mark on this as she aged on screen into a very different person and actress. Not her fault :shrug: Harry's character is popular but the screen version doesn't portray that very well. Besides, confidence is not a trait that most teens have in spades. Even the accomplishments of "the chosen one" can be squashed by the nerves of asking a girl to a dance or realising that your best mate's sister is attractive. At any rate, I think that the two are comparable but that one must take into account the difference in media and the intended audience. For us to comment as adults without forgetting we're adults is a bit foolish.

Nerdiness and prettiness are not mutually exclusive. Nor were they portrayed as such in the book!

[Greendruid]

Nerdiness and prettiness are not mutually exclusive. Nor were they portrayed as such in the book!

Indeed, I have no quarrel with that. My point was that one doesn't generally come away from the books with the image of Hermione as a pretty girl or of her looks as a primary descriptor. Her capabilities as a witch and a nerd are much more emphasised, especially in light of the movies' portrayal of the character by comparison.

[cygnewhite]

Harry Potter is obvously better as books. I think the movie gets boring since the Order of the Phoenix.

[Michael]

Indeed, I have no quarrel with that. My point was that one doesn't generally come away from the books with the image of Hermione as a pretty girl or of her looks as a primary descriptor. Her capabilities as a witch and a nerd are much more emphasised, especially in light of the movies' portrayal of the character by comparison.

I was going to ask about this - whether the Hermoine character in the books was portrayed as drop-dead stunningly beautiful as is Emma Thompson.

[Donkey]

Well, as always, your ops provide us with so much to discuss. :) And I really hate abbr. ukpwutar
I was simply expressing my agreement with Margot's post.
Nerdiness and prettiness are not mutually exclusive. Nor were they portrayed as such in the book!
Indeed. Hermione has two main "ugly factors" as described by Rowling: hair and teeth.

In book four she gets both taken care of, one by magic, one by product. I think it's pretty acceptable that she is generally attractive for the rest of the series.
I was going to ask about this - whether the Hermoine character in the books was portrayed as drop-dead stunningly beautiful as is Emma Thompson.No. But who would have known that 13 year old Emma Watson was going to turn into the uber-babe of the century. :shrug:

[Margot]

The Emma Thompson infatuation that a lot of men have seems sort of pedophiliac to me.

It strikes me the same way as does reading an old book where an older man watches a little girl grow up and then marries her (like in Jane Austen's ironically titled Emma). Gross.

[evanescence]

I think part of the problem of discussing this at all is the confusion entered into by discussing the book storyline within a movie thread. The movies are very much condensed versions of the books and if someone hasn't read the books, one would be left with many questions about social details that aren't presented in the movies. I'd like to comment on both now.

I thought that the most recent installment of the movie series was well done. Indeed, there are multiple camping scenes but these have purpose for building the plot-line so I don't find them terribly boring. Besides, if it was all spell flashes and combat it would be too much. One has to save that for the big battle at Hogwarts to come in Part II. I couldn't remember the Harry and Hermione kissing scene from the book either but it was used brilliantly in the movie to underscore Ron's insecurities and the truly clever nature of Voldemort's curse of the locket. He is after all the most powerful evil wizard of all time and I'd expect nothing short of a brilliant self-induced illusion to be the perfect trap. While there are certainly elements missing from the movie that are rife in the book (the whole back story to the house elves and Hermione for one) I don't think all of this would translate well into the film medium. I was disappointed in the lacking of some details but that's just my thorough reading and building of scenes from my imagination as I read the books.

As for the book series, I think Rowling is brilliant and she created a brilliant hero character in Harry Potter that will be celebrated for generations to come. I will certainly be reading them with my son as he comes into middle childhood. The character development is sublime if you can manage to divorce yourself from your own adulthood for the duration of the read and become a child again. Seriously, for those of you who think that the character development is childish, well, that's the audience it was intended for. I think that she managed to illustrate the world of pre-teens and teens very, very well. Comparing screen Harry to book Harry or screen Hermione to book Hermione is a fool's game in many ways. Hermione is not pretty in the book - she's a nerd. Emma Watson missed the mark on this as she aged on screen into a very different person and actress. Not her fault :shrug: Harry's character is popular but the screen version doesn't portray that very well. Besides, confidence is not a trait that most teens have in spades. Even the accomplishments of "the chosen one" can be squashed by the nerves of asking a girl to a dance or realising that your best mate's sister is attractive. At any rate, I think that the two are comparable but that one must take into account the difference in media and the intended audience. For us to comment as adults without forgetting we're adults is a bit foolish.

I rarely allow myself to be limited by labels such as "for children" or "for adults" when it comes to novels, especially. My imagination can fill in any necessary gaps.

I was going to ask about this - whether the Hermoine character in the books was portrayed as drop-dead stunningly beautiful as is Emma Thompson.

Definitely not. In the book, she was a nerd. Hollywood chose Emma Watson.

[Michael]

I was simply expressing my agreement with Margot's post.

Indeed. Hermione has two main "ugly factors" as described by Rowling: hair and teeth.

In book four she gets both taken care of, one by magic, one by product. I think it's pretty acceptable that she is generally attractive for the rest of the series.
No. But who would have known that 13 year old Emma Watson was going to turn into the uber-babe of the century. :shrug:

Thanks for the clarification. And yes, I meant Emma Watson as Hermoine.

I suppose you're right about the casting. They were cast as children and it would be impossible to predict that Emma would turn out to be such a beauty a few years down the road.

[evanescence]

Daniel Radcliff certainly looked like a great Harry Potter even five years ago. Emma was a beautiful little girl. It wasn't too hard to see she would be so attractive even at a young age.

[Donkey]

Daniel Radcliff certainly looked like a great Harry Potter even five years ago. Emma was a beautiful little girl. It wasn't too hard to see she would be so attractive even at a young age.

*shrug* Hermione isn't supposed to be ugly.

[evanescence]

The description of her hair didn't sound appealing. But that's what's great about books. Your perception of this character is different even though we read the same book.

[Donkey]

The description of her hair didn't sound appealing. But that's what's great about books. Your perception of this character is different even though we read the same book.

See the Ball in book 4. Also, hair changes a lot.

[Michael]

... Emma was a beautiful little girl. It wasn't too hard to see she would be so attractive even at a young age.

Actually no. It is my understanding that really pretty children don't usually turn out to be beautiful adults. I've seen lots of examples of this phenomena.

Seems that really good looking adults were average/ugly as children and many beautiful children often grow up to be quite average.

Seems quite rare for a small child to be deemed to be 'beautiful' to maintain that characterization for twenty plus years.

(Btw, you can't discuss this topic with parents of young children - they go ballistic over it! My introduction to the topic came from a little contest that a company I used to work for did. They had all the employees give a photo of themselves as a child (under 10 years of age) and put them up on a wall and then we all had to guess which kid-pic matched with the fellow employee. Suffice it to say, it became very obvious to me that the best looking adults definitely were NOT good looking children - and that several of the very best looking children turned out to be quite unattractive as adults - we had about a 100 employees so there were lots of photos to compare).

[evanescence]

Actually no. It is my understanding that really pretty children don't usually turn out to be beautiful adults. I've seen lots of examples of this phenomena.

Seems that really good looking adults were average/ugly as children and many beautiful children often grow up to be quite average.

Seems quite rare for a small child to be deemed to be 'beautiful' to maintain that characterization for twenty plus years.

(Btw, you can't discuss this topic with parents of young children - they go ballistic over it! My introduction to the topic came from a little contest that a company I used to work for did. They had all the employees give a photo of themselves as a child (under 10 years of age) and put them up on a wall and then we all had to guess which kid-pic matched with the fellow employee. Suffice it to say, it became very obvious to me that the best looking adults definitely were NOT good looking children - and that several of the very best looking children turned out to be quite unattractive as adults - we had about a 100 employees so there were lots of photos to compare).

:lol: ok well a study on this strange phenomenon should be carried out at once!

[Tom Palven]

:lol: ok well a study on this strange phenomenon should be carried out at once!

Apply for a grant and you're golden!

[Michael]

:lol: ok well a study on this strange phenomenon should be carried out at once!

Actually, I think not. This is one of those things that people (especially parents) probably are better off being entirely ignorant about. ;)

[The Drunk Girl]

Actually no. It is my understanding that really pretty children don't usually turn out to be beautiful adults. I've seen lots of examples of this phenomena.

Seems that really good looking adults were average/ugly as children and many beautiful children often grow up to be quite average.

Seems quite rare for a small child to be deemed to be 'beautiful' to maintain that characterization for twenty plus years.

(Btw, you can't discuss this topic with parents of young children - they go ballistic over it! My introduction to the topic came from a little contest that a company I used to work for did. They had all the employees give a photo of themselves as a child (under 10 years of age) and put them up on a wall and then we all had to guess which kid-pic matched with the fellow employee. Suffice it to say, it became very obvious to me that the best looking adults definitely were NOT good looking children - and that several of the very best looking children turned out to be quite unattractive as adults - we had about a 100 employees so there were lots of photos to compare).

I have noticed this too and have been saying it for years.

I have also noticed ugly/average looking parents have pretty children. Trust me, I have lived in the south long enough to see some rough ass looking people. Makes you scratch your head and wonder how the hell did someone pretty come out of a combination of overweight mama with thin greasy hair and skinny daddy with a pop-belly and gaps in his teeth! :lol:

[Michael]

I have noticed this too and have been saying it for years.

I have also noticed ugly/average looking parents have pretty children. Trust me, I have lived in the south long enough to see some rough ass looking people. Makes you scratch your head and wonder how the hell did someone pretty come out of a combination of overweight mama with thin greasy hair and skinny daddy with a pop-belly and gaps in his teeth! :lol:

And according to my theory, those remarkably pretty children eventually end up looking like mom and dad when they grow up! :lol:

[Americano]

I have noticed this too and have been saying it for years.

I have also noticed ugly/average looking parents have pretty children. Trust me, I have lived in the south long enough to see some rough ass looking people. Makes you scratch your head and wonder how the hell did someone pretty come out of a combination of overweight mama with thin greasy hair and skinny daddy with a pop-belly and gaps in his teeth! :lol:

In Oregon we'd speculate the child avoided the family tradition of living for meth.