Project Potter

I don't really know what you guys are talking about, but this is my favourite thread.

Hermione just wanted to show off.

That's true. She hoodwinked Harry and Ron into a more difficult plan just because she wanted to try it. That's an explaination I can get behind. And why HP and the Bear have to lose that zero. She can't even tell cat hair from human hair? WTF-kind of witch can't recognize cat hair?

kumarhk wrote:

Roundapanda wrote:Maybe it was just 'cause Polyjuice potion is funner to read about than the cloak

Sigh. I love you, Eliza, but you said "funner". Go stand in the corner for an hour.

Aww dang it

Mandi wrote:Hermione just wanted to show off.

Being just a bit too American for my own good, I suppose, I never read her name right. In my mind, it rhymed with "join" ... but now I know that it rhymes with "hiney" ... and I think that's hilarious!

I think there is a case that could be made that Chamber of Secrets is actually the best Potter book. It has no pretensions of literary grandeur like all of the books following, and it dosen't attempt to be dark enough for adults either. It has its dark moments, but just in the right way that a childrens book should have darkness.
It also benefits from being the second part. The first book has to set up all the characters and the world, and so its shit. The second one is where Rowling can have a bit more fun. She adds in new characters, expands the world and puts a different spin of the plot, so she keeps the story fresh.

Okay, I'm getting really pissed off by this "children's book" bollocks. The Harry Potter series is indeed directed at children, and yes, the books got darker and more complex as they went on - BUT you don't need to put them in a box. Why can't a book just be a book? Why must we classify it so and expect certain things from it? Why can't a series of novels evolve on their own? Argh. If it wasn't eight past one in the morning, I would rant more.

Because if you don't classify them as "children's books" they're kind of crappy. It's a safety valve.

Jakob wrote:they're kind of crappy.

Why do you say these things?

You misunderstand me. As "children's books" they're quite excellent. Especially for children's fantasy (which can be truly horrid). But as of halfway through Azkaban, they've yet to transcend the genre.

Jakob wrote:You misunderstand me. As "children's books" they're quite excellent. Especially for children's fantasy (which can be truly horrid). But as of halfway through Azkaban, they've yet to transcend the genre.

Wait till the ending, you'll be like "omg noo waaay"

Roundapanda wrote:

Jakob wrote:You misunderstand me. As "children's books" they're quite excellent. Especially for children's fantasy (which can be truly horrid). But as of halfway through Azkaban, they've yet to transcend the genre.

Wait till the ending, you'll be like "omg noo waaay"

He's seen the film. But then again, the film does no justice to the Marauders' story.

Jakob wrote:Because if you don't classify them as "children's books" they're kind of crappy. It's a safety valve.

I really can't accept this. Even as a child, I ditched tons of "children's books" because they were patronising me. I think authors feel they can do this because of that "safety valve". Rowling doesn't patronise me in the slightest, and I really appreciate that.

kumarhk wrote:

Roundapanda wrote:

Jakob wrote:You misunderstand me. As "children's books" they're quite excellent. Especially for children's fantasy (which can be truly horrid). But as of halfway through Azkaban, they've yet to transcend the genre.

Wait till the ending, you'll be like "omg noo waaay"

He's seen the film. But then again, the film does no justice to the Marauders' story.

Well... Then he'll be like
"omg the POA moive suuuucked"

The movies totally failled with the marauders. *sigh* goddamGaryOldmanandhistatoo'sandhisshortness&bloodyDavidThewlissandhiscardigansandthatfuckingmustache

I actually really like the actors they cast in those roles, but the script just didn't do the Marauders justice. I think HBP will determine whether I forgive Kloves for that.

They should have kept Goldenberg on as a co-writer or a script consultant.

kumarhk wrote:I actually really like the actors they cast in those roles, but the script just didn't do the Marauders justice. I think HBP will determine whether I forgive Kloves for that.

They should have kept Goldenberg on as a co-writer or a script consultant.

they should have shaved David Thewliss

I heart the Marauders and completely agree about the mustache. Thewliss is alright, but I don't like Gary Oldman as, oh eff, I'm tired... what's his name?? S... s... Sirius!! Whoa, my brain, sumfing happened to it.

Anyway, yes, as I've said before. The Marauders story is by far the best part of the books. Especially is one reads between the sheets and picks up on all the subsexual references.

Mandi wrote:I heart the Marauders and completely agree about the mustache. Thewliss is alright, but I don't like Gary Oldman as, oh eff, I'm tired... what's his name?? S... s... Sirius!! Whoa, my brain, sumfing happened to it.

Anyway, yes, as I've said before. The Marauders story is by far the best part of the books. Especially is one reads between the sheets and picks up on all the subsexual references.

I do love a bit of subtext
(Remus and Sirius's joint christmas present to Harry, ftw)

Intriguing. I thought #3 was the best of the films -- which, I must admit, does not include #5 yet. That still may be true within the realm of the original (book) is better (than adaptations).
I guess I need to watch #5 before -- or shortly after -- #6 comes out on film.

As for #2, my favorite part was the totally original idea of having the heroes overcome a large and menacing spider ... what? Oh, nevermind!

GAB wrote:As for #2, my favorite part was the totally original idea of having the heroes overcome a large and menacing spider ... what? Oh, nevermind!

I actually like the fact that almost none of the magical creatures or mythos she creates is original. It backs up the whole idea that the wizarding world exists underground, and the little bits of things muggles spot sometimes effects their mythology. In Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, for example, she explains that muggles have dragons and fairies in their mythology because they knew of them before the wizards decided to go underground.

I keep wanting her to get into that a bit more. So as to make it not just a tidy excuse for theiving ideas. It works with using vampires and werewolves and the larger ideas in our mythos, but when it's direct theiving (like saying Sirius Black "went over to the dark side") then it's a bit rich. And the idea of people being depressed because there's a dementor standing beside them they can't see is a bit too scientology. Though I like the idea of the wizarding world mirroring English folk tales.

I've rounded up some of my Potter thoughts into writing:
http://nerdhurdles.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/project-potter-chamber-of-azkaban/

I've done this mostly to nerk Kumar.

I'll give you Lupin's name being ridiculously obvious, it's almot like his parents were asking for him to get bitten
You know, I'm surprised you guys didn't menion Lupin more, considering he's one of the most awesomest characters... would've been a great way to promote blatantly gay werewolf rights Hugged him like a brother... yeah right, Harry just didn't spot the groping

I don't like to comment on subsextual content.

Jakob wrote:I don't like to comment on subsextual content.

literally all comment I on now, slash fiction has corrupted me