|
|
Post by Blessed Devil on Jun 14, 2008 22:34:18 GMT 7
So, I was trying to troll Karen by saying something not nice about Harry Potter. And this is how our conversation went on: Okay, I will provoke you. Harry Potter sucks. Prove to me that it doesn't. BDaddy: Harry Potter doesn't suck. It is a totally entertaining and wholesome book. It gave us an insight into British life better than the other books. It entertained me more than, say, Lord of the Rings. And that's saying something since I read everything. And Daniel Radcliffe as the movie alter ego of HP is not half-bad either. I mean, in the first three movies only. It doesn't suck because it gave you an insight into British life? You should watch something like.. Super Noypi or something because it will give you an insight into Filipino life. BD: I didn't watch Super Noypi because its director, Quark Henares, told us expressly NOT to watch it. And will you really argue with the director?! ...Until I'm proven wrong, Harry Potter still sucks. Giving insight into British life does not make it un-sucky because anyone who really wants to know about Britain can research about it without needing a storybook. @bd: fine. so there's no point in arguing with you, is there? so yeah, HP doesn't give too much insight into british life the same way encyclopedia britannica or wikipedia does, but, you have to understand that the examples I mentioned ARE NOT FUN. and you have to also understand, that HP was also slammed by staunch catholics (?? religious people) as a book about ACTUAL witchcraft and that it demoralizes its young readers. now, judging from the image you are trying to project here, that should get you thinking. Continuation will be in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Blessed Devil on Jun 14, 2008 22:43:13 GMT 7
No, look at it this way: the basis of why Harry Potter excels for you is irrelevant to the quality of the story itself. What if I live in Britain? I probably won't be needing any insight on British life anymore, so can I say that on that ground, Harry Potter sucks?
And no, don't try to bribe me with religion stories. I already know about that and this is how it goes:
Church: Ohai guise I found dis neato book. Lets read! blah blah blah blah wizardry blah blah OMG IT SAYS HERE "WITCHCRAFT"! THIS BOOK IS A SIN WE MUST BURN THEM!
JK: I'm not talking about ACTUAL demon-dealing witches, you know.
It's a gross oversimplification, but it's almost entirely accurate. You see, there's a nice wide line between controversy, and people being idiots.
By the way, you might think there's no point in arguing with me, but in truth, you actually learn a lot. I am more than an arrogant internet motherfucker.
|
|
|
|
Post by TiniWini on Jun 14, 2008 23:13:21 GMT 7
Yes you are, BD.. It's good that you admit that you are an arrogant internet motherfucker.. A persistent one, at that..
And oh yea.. I really think that you're the only one here who hates Harry Potter.. Majority wins!! HA!! XD
|
|
|
|
Post by Blessed Devil on Jun 15, 2008 5:53:10 GMT 7
Oh, I don't hate Harry Potter. Hating Harry Potter means I've read it and cringed at every scene. I haven't even read it (save for the first book) so... I'm indifferent towards it. I've watched three movies. They were.. meh.
But all in all I'm just having a little fun here. Personally, I think Potter is overrated. I really don't get what the hype is all about. I found it leadenly dull and unimaginatively-plagiarist. JK Rowling strips the very mystery and wonder from magic, thus reducing those fantastical events to the level of mere conjury.
There are better books out there. People find Harry Potter extremely accessible, though, which is largely why it sells so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by TiniWini on Jun 15, 2008 8:43:02 GMT 7
And, of course, it's child-friendly..  |
|
parksoobyung
Angelo Degli Incubi
chillax, mate! ^^
Posts: 103
|
Post by parksoobyung on Jun 15, 2008 11:21:26 GMT 7
JOBOY! No fair! you edited your last post!! gwar!
anyhoo, this will be the LAST reply I will ever make regarding HP. HP is so passe, let's move on to, say, Gossip Girl?
It is hard to defend something you don't believe in, you know. And so, here it is:
Yes, Harry Potter, compared to LOTR (which bored me senseless) and other british classics like Narnia and shiz, HP HAS NOTHING ON THEM. HP's storyline is predictable, the ending sucks (why did HP marry Ginny? WTF?!) while the classics I've mentioned has stood the test of time (they're still doing the Narnia movies after all these years!) and I really believe JKR really became bigheaded for something I would like to call a fluke, or whatever.
But, HP has something of merit. Something that hasn't happened in recent time. HP made children READ again. HP made kids from all over the world get their lazy butts off the computer and actually read something. Yes, it's not the best book by far, but HP sustained the kid's interest long enough to have a new revival in book reading (you might not have noticed, but the books like Eragon and books about magical stuff only became readily available when publishers saw that there was a market for kids). The only evidence would be the billions JKR earned bacause of it.
So there. HP doesn't suck entirely. I'm off to the next thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blessed Devil on Jun 15, 2008 18:35:35 GMT 7
Yes, Harry Potter, compared to LOTR (which bored me senseless) and other british classics like Narnia and shiz, HP HAS NOTHING ON THEM. HP's storyline is predictable, the ending sucks (why did HP marry Ginny? WTF?!) while the classics I've mentioned has stood the test of time (they're still doing the Narnia movies after all these years!) and I really believe JKR really became bigheaded for something I would like to call a fluke, or whatever. I agree completely. Oh, LotR was more like 15 minutes of "We made a ring but we must destroy it" and 3-4 hours of running away from a fucking army. @martin: Narnia is child-friendly and it did much better. :/ Besides, according to J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter is for all ages. But seriously, people as mature as us have better options. But, HP has something of merit. Something that hasn't happened in recent time. HP made children READ again. HP made kids from all over the world get their lazy butts off the computer and actually read something. Yes, it's not the best book by far, but HP sustained the kid's interest long enough to have a new revival in book reading (you might not have noticed, but the books like Eragon and books about magical stuff only became readily available when publishers saw that there was a market for kids). The only evidence would be the billions JKR earned bacause of it. I guess you can't argue with success, but we both know that success =/= good story. Imagine no media. No TV. Do you still think that children from all over the world will get their lazy butts off their computer to read Harry Potter? Too bad you don't really believe in what you're fighting for. I apologize, I thought you were a Potter fan. Really, you could've said something like, "I'm sorry but I can't prove you wrong because I agree with you." |
|
|
|
Post by AJ the Ass Slayer on Jun 18, 2008 22:00:37 GMT 7
I don't like Harry Potter. It started sucking on the 4th book. The ending was suck-tastrophe.
|
|
parksoobyung
Angelo Degli Incubi
chillax, mate! ^^
Posts: 103
|
Post by parksoobyung on Jun 21, 2008 20:03:12 GMT 7
@bd: Just because I read all seven books doesn't mean I'm a Potter fan. more of, I just wanted to know what the fuss is about.
@aj: YES. HP was a major suck-tastrophe from the 4th book onward. and I can say the same for the movies.
|
|
Okay, I will provoke you.
BDaddy: Harry Potter doesn't suck. It is a totally entertaining and wholesome book. It gave us an insight into British life better than the other books. It entertained me more than, say, Lord of the Rings. And that's saying something since I read everything.
