I saw the Harry Potter movie last night, and, as usual with a Harry Potter movie, I came away puzzled. It looked great, it was intriguingly dark in places, it made all the right moves, yet, once again by half way through I was looking at my watch and wondering why the cinema seats were so uncomfortable. I decided I’d try to analyse why I’m so bored by Harry Potter, while Frodo keeps me entertained for hours.
First things first.
- Bad Acting.
Let’s be honest here. The leads (ie the children) aren’t very good at the acting thing. Even surrounding them with first rate actors like Gary Oldman, Richard Griffiths, David Thewlis doesn’t hide the fact they don’t have the emotional range, the technique, the power or the subtlety they need. But that isn’t necessarily a problem: Lord of the Rings brims, almost overflows, with acting of the fine old mahogany variety. - It’s adapted from a book and it shows.
The story meanders, has silly little detours, elements and characters that just don’t go anywhere. Hmm. Maybe. You can get away with a story that isn’t taut, but you’d better make it funny while you do so. And, thinking about it, Lord of the Rings did have most of its diversions pruned out (to the intense chagrin of Tom Bombadil fans everywhere). - Deus ex machina ending.
Definitely. I was bored stiff by the end, so I’m not sure this is right, but as far as I remember Voldemort was slugging it out with Dumbledore (why not Harry I don’t know) when the day was saved by the sudden, unmotivated, and and highly convenient arrival of a load of people from the Ministry. Voldemort takes one look, gets scared, and for some reason does a runner. (Hardly the behaviour of the big bad arch demon he has been set up to be.) But then we never actually get Frodo face to face with Sauron anyway either in Lord of the Rings, and that works.
OK. So you know what I think the real problem is?
It’s to do with integrity.
The world of Harry Potter feels like it has been thrown together from elements stolen from every children’s book ever written, all jumbled together like a bag of Botts Beans because each element feels good. The overall effect is thematic confusion. After five or so movies I still don’t think Harry Potter land feels like a real place.
Whereas Middle Earth feels utterly real.
To my mind that comes from Tolkien’s deep understanding of Old English literature, and his obsessive need to work out every inch of the land and every year of millenia of imagined history.
Just a simple example: The names in Middle Earth all feel real. Each race in the story has its own vividly imagined culture, and the way the names grow round different themes and phonetic clusters is just the most obvious sign of that.
The names in Harry Potter feel like a fistful of weak jokes thrown at a wall.
When the dragon flies out over the town of Dale, Tolkien’s references to Beowulf, in both the vocabulary he uses and the actual story events, feel earned, and valid, and organic. I feel like I am witnessing another step in an ancient storytelling tradition that began with oral poets round a fire in a great mead hall.
When JK Rowling gives us giants in this story all I feel is: ‘Oh, another thing she’s stolen and thrown away.’
I could go on, but life is short.
(OK, one last question – can you think of anything in Harry Potter that doesn’t feel like it has been stolen from somewhere else?)
The big question is: Does It Matter? They’re both silly fantasies aren’t they?
Well, they’re both fantasies. But only one of them is silly.
The Lord of the Rings feels like it grows naturally out of a deep understanding and love for a real, powerful history. It feels like a worthy next step in a mythology that sustained an ancient people for centuries.
The Harry Potter books feel like they were cobbled together out of a pile of moments stolen from half remembered children’s books on a two hour train journey in the rain. (Oh. You mean that’s just exactly what happened?) (Sorry, JK, but that story persists…)
As a writer JK Rowling has a ton of personal magic, so she’s worked absolute wonders with her source material – but it’s based on sand and it won’t sustain.
That’s just my opinion, of course.
How To Write A Screenplay
{ 58 comments… read them below or add one }
Next Comments →
They’re both for kids aren’t they? WHat are you getting so worked up about?
Nice buddy. I like it so much. Come on keep it up
Nice job Philip. Thanks for cutting through the facade with some technically sound observations about the artistic merits of the Potter movies.
As for the comments about them being children’s works I have never thought that children should be regarded as less deserving of exposure to great art. To me the Potter thing is a fad that will grow increasingly tasteless with time as all fads (such as pet rocks and mood rings) eventually do.
Fiji
Hi,
Firstly, thanks to Frank for extending this
curtesy. Yes. I actually walked out on the
first Harry Potter and havn’t been back since.
But, Rawlings can write, and very good. I felt
I was starting to see Star Wars again when I saw Harry Potter.
Her extroadinary talent is within her writing.
Last note different movie. I went to see
Michael Clayton last night with George Clooney
and observed the writer violated some basic
principals. However, the acting was good but
anyone could see where the writing messed up.
IE, George Clooney is being chased by murderers
who have planted a bomb in his car. –He just
happens to stop the car by a field, gets out of the car, sees several horses and gazes at them, and then the car blows up. HELLO?????
(He just happen to get out of the car to gaze at the horses and the car blows up?) The writer
quit doing his job at that moment.
Very dissappointing because I went to learn
from the film. I really make a lousy movie critic but I had to mention this. That was one
of about seven other writing violations.
Mickey Josephson
Haven’t seen it yet, but that does sound like a big writing crime. Was initially surprised because Clooney is a very smart director – but he didn’t direct…
According to IMDB the car was clearly a hardnosed old pro of a method car/actor…
“The Mercedes-Benz S-Class sedan that is blown up in this film was first used in filming of The Devil Wears Prada (2006). For the earlier film it was cut in two for use in process shots featuring Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway. It was then welded back together and repainted in order to be blown up in ‘Michael Clayton’. The car’s preparation was featured on an episode of “Shooting Cars” (2006).”
I totally agree with every single line of what you wrote. Just can’t add anymore.
JK Rowling is a good writer that writes good books. And that’s all. But when it comes to the movies I think the main problem is the first one: Bad acting.
Lord of the Rings was also adapted from a book, a very good one too. Though, it works much better than Harry Potter because the actors know how to express the emotions that, not only the original writter of the book (Tolkin) but also the adapted script, made clear they wanted to be in the movie as a part of it.
That’s probably the reason why when we watch Lord of the Rings we enter in the movie and it’s like we’re there with all the characters.
While watching Harry Potter we don’t feel as conected with the characters nor with the story.
I’m also wondering whether the writers of the Harry Potter screenplays had to stay closer to the novels. I’ve never really done the analysis, but I’d imagine the HP screenplays are lacking fairly straightforward screnplay structural basics. Don’t know, and I don’t fancy going back to see any of them for a more detailed look!
1) I think the fact that Harry Potter is jumping from one director to another doesn’t help its losing battle to begin with. All of them have a different feeling so it’s hard to settle in on it.
2) You’re right, the acting in Harry Potter can’t even be saved by Gary Oldman and Alan Rickman and such because they aren’t the main characters. Would they give more screen time to them, you may get the terrible taste of the child actors out of your mouth but sadly, I don’t think they will do that for the remaining to movies.
3) Like you said, Middle Earth feels more real than Hogwarts ever will.
There’s more but like you said, life is short.
To Whom It May Concern:
Just because you guys don’t know how to read a book like Harry Potter that does not give you the right to chastise or bad mouth it. I have watched both movies and read them both as books and they are different in ways but if you are gonna do that, get real movie critics to do that for you, ok?
1) The changing of the directors has nothing to do with the movies. The directors change because they might not want to do the movies anymore or they only signed up for 1 or 2 movies. So get over it.
2) The people who play Harry, Ron, Hermione, Ginny, and the other main characters are beginning actors and actress, remember that.
3) Either both Middle Earth and the Wizarding world are real or neither one of them are real. If you can’t get into Harry Potter as much Lord Of the Rings, then don’t watch or read it. It is as simple as that!
Sincerely,
Freak for Fantasy
if you don’t like the movies don’t watch them
Interesting comments FFF. You do seem to get emotional about these discussions.
I was personally unaware that someones “right” to complain about a movie was governed either by their credentials or by your opinion about what they say. Probably they were not aware of that either.
What baffles me is how personally you seem to take the idea of someone else voicing their opinion. Does it matter at all (on an emotional level) if you don’t agree with them? Do they need a telling off from you because they don’t like something?
Seems like you could use a little fresh air and sunshine. Fantasy does not appear to be helping you.
I get plenty of fresh air and sunshine. I’m a California girl who enjoys all that fantasy has to give. Aren’t you doing the same thing to me that you told me not to do? There is a difference between getting emotional about something and being passionate about it,get that straight.It does NOT matter to me what people think,but guess what, I am SOOOOOO tired of people saying CRAP about something I like. Everybody has opinions, but I DO NOT have to agree with them and I am entitled to my opinon whether it be passionate or emotional. For all I care, they can say whatever they want, but they shouldn’t say it where a whole lot of Harry Potter fans will try and fight for the movies/books unless they want a fight. If you have a problem with me stating my opinion, then say it out loud and try not to beat around the bush.I have some better advice for you, if you don’t like my opinions, don’t read ‘em!
Oh and what baffles me is why you care what I think!
Hmmmm. I don’t actually see where I told you to do or not do anything. I did ask some questions but I don’t see how that indicates anything but inquisitiveness.
As for caring what you think I’m not sure where you extrapolated that from. I believe what I did was engage you in some dialog. So you could say I was interested in dialog. I did that because emotional (your word passionate) people are almost guaranteed to respond. You did respond and in a rather predictable fashion I might add.
If the fact that I enjoy dialog seems like I care what you think I guess you are entitled to that interpretation. In a way I suppose showing even a mild interest in what someone else thinks is somewhat similar to caring what they think — but it really doesn’t matter to me how, or even if, you respond. Your response, whatever you say, moves the dialog forward.
As for your opinions I don’t see where I have done anything other than discuss them with you. I didn’t say I either liked or didn’t like them. To me they are something posted here to observe and dialog with if I get the urge.
I’m not sure I’ll ever get your idea of passion and emotion — what you call “straight” — since I tend to direct my passion towards producing results and tend to conduct my discussions in a more relaxed way.
I made the observation that your somewhat dramatic approach to telling people who don’t like the things you do — seemed as though you needed more fresh air and sunshine. I was clearly wrong about that in the literal sense but in a metaphorical sense I wonder if it doesn’t apply.
Nonetheless my observations are not based on any significant sampling of your behavior — only on this brief discussion.
Another question if I may? How could you be soooo tired of people saying “crap” about what you like — if you didn’t care what they thought? When we say “she doesn’t have a care in the world” we don’t normally use that expression to refer to someone who is sooooo tired because of anything that people are saying.
FT
I am soooo tired of people saying CRAP about Harry Potter because I have heard to much of it.But apparently you do not understand.I will elaborate.If I care about something or someone,and someone is going to bad mouth what or who I like, I am going to defend it, and NOT care about what they say about said who/what.Is that plain and simple enough for you?This will be the end of my part of the, as you call it, dialog. If you wish to comment back, good for you, but I will not.
Good-Bye Forever,
Freak For Fantasy
Ok thanks for sharing your thoughts. And no — what you are saying does not make sense to me because it seems contradictory. However thanks for your effort in attempting to elucidate me.
I love what Ghandi’s son said when confronted with what critics were saying about his father:
He said that how Ghandi lived his life was sufficient to stand by itself without needing anyone to defend it — and that his legacy was robust enough to stand up to scrutiny despite what criticisms were launched. I found that to be a pretty good example of someone who did not care about what people thought.
It makes sense to me to pick hero’s that don’t need anyone to defend them.
FT
I think we can all agree that everyone has a right to their opinion. I don’t think it’s fair for someone to say, “leave it to the movie critics” regarding stating one’s opinion of a film. Movie critics aren’t the only group that has a “right” to express an informed opinion on a film, albeit positive or negative. The only difference between people who are movie critics and people who aren’t is that the people who are actually get paid for stating their opinions of a movie.
I agree with Philip. I really looking forward for the Harry Potter movie when showing times is near, but I really had been disapointed when i saw it, it’s really too boring instead. The plot was too slow,then. The character is too different than i expected (i hope Dumbledore don’t act like a gangster for Harry, just like a guardian & teacher, just like the book describe) and there’s too many changes that i couldn’t accept, felt like destroy all the plot of story (something important were been cut, the other hand, the unnecessary plot had been added)very confusing,instead. I really prefered for read the book for 10th times than watch the movie for the 2nd times. But the minus point for the book is, JK couldnt describe out the terror of Voldelmort as good as Tolkiens do (The Voldermort’s terror in the Harry Potter just feel like only a STATEMENT!!!But Tolkien,i can felt the horror of Sauron in the each words!!!)
Hey,have you read Harry Potter and The Deathly Hollow? just one word i can describe my feeling, DISAPPOINTED!!!
1. How Harry dueling the previous Hocruxes(SAD!!!)
2. How all the puzzle (from book 1 – 7) didn’t have a responsible answer from the author (JK, are you forgot all the puzzle you had placed in your previous story 1-6??????)
3. How the Dursley’s ending? (not stated even in a word!!!)
Guys, it’s feel like has been cheated!!!:(
I do not believe this
I had a very long comment typed out, but I’ll summarize it for you in seven sentences:
1: If you’re going to try so hard to sound intelligent, please use your punctuation marks correctly.
2: Don’t compare two completely different things. You act like a children’s book series and a famed piece of master literature are the same basic things. And about screen plays… seriously? Screen play writers are the ass holes of the writing community. Write a book. Once you’ve finished a 700+ thousand word series, and once you’ve edited it fully with all new and original ideas, please feel free to bash any real author you wish.
If you’re referring to the movies then yes, I agree with you, it’s just a bunch of random garble thrown together and the acting is terrible.
If you were talking about the books, then fuck you.
Lotr wins of course! Not saying that harry potter sucks but i guess that lotr has several characters that i can relate to.
I am back to reply to you all…Anon, i partially agree with you.
but here is something to think about.
Doesnt the writer of the book have majority say in the movies? If so, doesnt she also have control over who is in the movie and what goes in and comes out of the book to be in the movie? So if she agreed to everything, why, may i ask do you care?
FT, dear, how are you? Are you still confused by what I was talking about dear? I disagree with ya’ll by saying lotr was better…dont get me wrong, i love lotr, but harry potter has always been my first love book wise. and movie wise…
Each to their own.
Btw, Phil Gladwin…don’t you think it’s too much that you went the way to “bash” the actors for bad acting? Especially the 3 main characters? They’re just kids when they 1st started off in the franchise, omg!
When you pitted the lead actors against the lead actors in Harry Potter of course LOTR will emerge the winner. Don’t you think you’re bashing Harry Potter as well as the fans?
Please don’t get me wrong. I love LOTR as well. But I just can’t agree with you when you actually “bashed” the Potter lead actors. It’s not fair.
Aight, i totally agree…i mean seriously, they were beginning actors at age 10-13…
Exactly. 13yr old kids against a cast of experienced over30 years old actors = a huge age gap.
But if you make the comparisons:
Frodo v Harry Potter
Samwise Gamgee v Ron(?)
Arwen v Hermione
Dang…big difference yo!
it would be like comparing carrie underwood to george strait, yes she is a great singer, but she lacks the experience of strait…or comparing justin bieber to someone like bette midler or something…if u wanna get into actors, its like miley cyrus vs clint eastwood or something…they lack experience, but are still good actors…
I was wondering…why the person who wrote this article didn’t mention anything about Narnia? Ain’t the main characters mostly under 20 years old????
I thought I’d drop my two cents on you about the two sets of movies.
First and foremost I will state this, I am not a fan of movies based on books.
There is a certain level of intrigue that exists with the novels that we’ve read, LOTR and HP both carry that intrigue in the novels. How we imagine the characters and imagine the things that happen are often distorted by the movie standard images.
Harry Potter works and doesn’t work at times and for various reasons. The same goes for Lord of the Rings. To be frank, however, I think that LOTR fails on levels that far exceed on how Harry Potter fails.
In some respect Harry Potter is a victim of poor acting. I wouldn’t say bad acting because they’re not terrible, just new and stuck in a role. This doesn’t just go for Tom Felton or Rupert Grint, or any of the kids who act (yes that includes Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson) but it also includes the more elite actors. At times the more experienced actors seem to lose faith in their characters. Alan Rickman is a great example. In the last three films his character acting fails time and again. It’s as though he is bored with the character and no longer interested.
In general this is a problem for any long production. Considering that the acting careers for many of the people on this show started with Harry Potter, or have ended with Harry Potter and it’s taken a decade to make the films, it’s no wonder that the acting has suffered.
A similar issue, though not as pronounced, occurred with LOTR. In fact the last movie had the weakest acting and sadly the worst CGI interaction I’ve ever seen. The level of acting degradation isn’t as pronounced in LOTR because it takes place over only three films.
There is also a stark contrast in length and detail of films when comparing the two series. While Lord of the Rings in each of it’s films cut a great deal, they all still ran for more than two hours. The first one being 2.96 hours (178 minutes). The first Harry Potter was only 152 minutes or two and a half hours. This suggests different target audiences. Harry Potter films consistently run shorter than 2.5 hours suggesting a target audience of pre-teens, tweens, young teens and parents. LOTR consistently ran near or past 3 hours, suggesting a target audience of old more patient fans.
Story and plot wise, the two are much different in nature so I won’t comment here. I will point out that unlike LOTR where parts were cut but nothing was really changed in the canon (I’m sure LOTR fans will disagree with me on this), the Harry Potter films introduced new canon while purposefully and relatively successfully leaving out unnecessary parts. The fifth movie is a good example of this. The change the writer of this article talks about with Voldemort and Dumbledore fighting one another was changed. The spells used and how Harry was protected (the bringing to life the statues for example being removed and changed) changed the canon. In fact the entire trek, sneaking in, many of the points which relied on Harry’s knowledge were changed to cover up plot-holes in the original story (eh-hem the two way mirrors Harry was expressly given to talk to Sirius privately that he conveniently forgot about and didn’t use…).
The real grit behind their inherent failures and successes however is in the textual reading. It is fair to assume that most LOTR fans have one standard for what they expect from a story, and Harry Potter fans have a different one. This is relative again to the audience because of the generational gap. Also frankly the style of writing is very different, Harry Potter relies on mystery and intrigue while LOTR relies on the action-adventure goal oriented push.
In other words, a person who goes LOTR is better probably watched Harry Potter with an eye meant for LOTR, rather than fresh eyes without expectations.
Now my personal gripe is the plot hole. In many cases with Harry Potter key details from the books are left out often to be referred to at a later time without particular description. In some cases this is fine, we as an audience can accept the nature of the film and it’s limitations and sometimes we don’t need to see certain scenes that existed in the books to accept they have occurred after being mentioned in passing. However, in some cases, the mention in passing refers to something never stated at all or referenced. For example, in the fourth film, Harry is to have won the Triwizard tournament and the gold prize at the end. This prize is never mentioned in the films and thus for the entire film the money is non-existent. Now those of us who have read the books know that at the end of the fourth book Harry gives the galleons to Fred and George to start their joke shop. Yet some how int he fifth movie they have the money needed to do the shop on their own. This is all well in good, maybe they made enough off their initial bits to do so, it doesn’t become a plot hole until a small reference from the book rears it’s ugly head in the joke shop. The twins give Harry a bit of black powder, which he later uses as a smoke screen. The do so in a rather grateful attitude, yet there is really no reason for them to give Harry the items they do.
Plot holes like that are rampant in book based film adaptations. One of the excuses both LOTR and HP writers and producers gave for this was that people want to see the film to see the characters come to life, that it’s not important every detail is perfect. The films are supplements to the story not replacements, and rightly so. However, a retelling of the story should be effective and at least explicate plot-holes or get rid of them entirely.
If we are to take the OP’s arguments to any degree seriously I will have to argue against his point of integrity. LOTR was a hobbling together of various legends, lore, and myths as well, and in many respects is not that well written. The over all formula of the plot is bland and predictable and while it has risen to great fame and notoriety it’s merits are widely exaggerated (and often by fans who see it ans some ultimate work). Almost all fiction is a reproduction of other stories. Concepts and ideas are constantly being re-imagined and reused. Integrity has nothing to do with it at all.
Heres the deal, JK Rowling has the final say in the movie, if she was not happy with the movies, why would she let the directer get away with it?? And if the acting is so horrible,why not ask for different actors?? On another note, in books 5-7, snape was essential a neutral character, not trying to be more snarky then he already was. I am 19 years old, and have read both Harry Potter and LOTR multiple times and have seen the movies, and have for alittle over 8 years, and I am not biased towards one or the other but if HP movies are so bad, why has the last broken a record of 1 billion dollars as of Monday August 1st. But heres the deal for me, if all someone is going to do is criticize a movie against another movie that is great in its rights, please do it somewhere where people actually agree with you, because all that matters is that the author of the books is happy, and the die hard fans like myself like it without the author being happy we would not have any movie at all and without the die hard fans, there would be no franchise. This is America, where yes you can speak freely about what you want, but remember that not everyone will agree with you, and it seems like if ya’ll did not like how the movies were made, guess what? You can do 1 of 2 things.1)Not watch them(no one is forcing you to see it) or 2)Write the author. another thing to remember is that just because you think that something is bad, doesnt necessarily mean something is bad, maybe its just not what you expect out of the movie. “Nothings always what it seems.”-Doubting Dave
I have to agree with FFF.
By the end of the day it all comes down to your own personal preference. I’ve watched Harry Potter 1st when I was around 7 or 8 years old. That was BEFORE I watched LOTR or have any “relations” in reading the books or watching the movie. After I’ve watched Harry Potter then have I watched LOTR.
Of course I ended up liking LOTR (not bashing Harry Potter or anything).
But of course, Kristoffer, the LOTR movie has failed “on levels that far exceed on how Harry Potter fails” because…if you read the books and go back to the movies there’s a huge gap! Tom Bombadil was entirely ommitted from the 1st movie!
Plus you can’t expect much from Hollywood movies, could you?
Firstly, Hollywood tends to overhype movies that are based on books.
Secondly, if directors were to follow everything that is in the books the movie would be either too long, becomes too boring, or that the directors do not see how important some parts of the books are and hence cuts it from the movies.
Thirdly, if you were to watched book-adapted movies like LOTR, Harry Potter, Narnia and many others in the likes, you’ll have to watch the movies as a stand-alone movie and read the book as itself and try not to make much comparisons. It’s up to everyone to decide whether they like the movies and/or books or not. After all, different people different tastes, correct?
@ FFF: I think you missed the point of the post. More over, you’ve basically restated what I’ve said in a less formal statement.
Quoted from my post “The real grit behind their inherent failures and successes however is in the textual reading.”
Because all people have their own opinions, their own likes and dislikes, failure or success is relative to the person viewing the film.
If one comes to a film with certain expectations, and those expectations aren’t met then that person tends to see the film as a failure. Which is what I meant by this: “In other words, a person who goes LOTR is better probably watched Harry Potter with an eye meant for LOTR, rather than fresh eyes without expectations.”
Regardless, I should note this isn’t “America” this is the internet. Do not presume that the rights, privileges and ideals you have are shared with everyone who might read these posts. Not that I’m knocking freedom of speech, I’m purely making an academic point on the validity of your argument.
@Aight: Again all you’ve done is restate pretty much what I’ve said, but in a slightly different way. That said, you do go further into explaining why LOTR failed, which I suppose I failed to explain this morning (at 4am GMT) when I posted what I did. You’re correct, there are huge gaps which create again plot holes which is one of my major gripes.
However, we should not categorize movies based on where they’re made, but by who makes them. Hollywood constitutes hundreds if not thousands of production companies. It is the big budget films that are based on books that tend to fail. Often however, it is not the directors that do not understand the importance of scenes, frankly that is a fallacious statement. This shows a lack of understanding of the production process. In many cases, and especially with LOTR and Narnia, almost all the scenes from the book are filmed, but as you’ve said being too long is a problem (or at least it’s a problem in the eyes of the larger production companies like WB and Touchstone). So the director with his producers (which are really his or her boss) cut scenes. The director has to choose which scenes are most important and which aren’t. Often cutting scenes, that while are important to maybe the over all plot of the book, aren’t essential for the film. My gripe is that this tends to leave plot holes, which they don’t go back in fix.
Further, I should point out that it is an overall consensus by fans at least that they’d have preferred the films be true to the books rather than their own entity. While J.K. Rowling might have last say on the script, she doesn’t for the final cut and presentation. Ultimately how the HP films were presented was up to the WB.
All this aside, acting and presentation is part of it and looking at the whole of the films is key to establishing if and how a film fails or succeeds.
Wow I can’t believe this thread is still alive.
FFF if by me being confused you mean do I still find your comments contradictory the answer is yes I do think you contradict yourself but my opinion matters little if at all. But thanks for asking.
I’m touched that you abandoned your rather dramatic “goodbye forever” and took the time to say hello some three and a half years later.
I hope you are doing well and have enjoyed the Harry Potter stories released since our last interaction.
Having been involved in various aspects of the production industry and also having published my own work — I still find Phillip Gladwin’s article that started this thread to contain the most useful insights from a professional point of view.
Aww, FT, u actually think i was caring what you have to say…thats cute…if you couldnt tell, i was being sarcastic when i asked how you were…but if you think my opinions and comments contradictory, then aights is and kristoffer as well.I actually aint gonna fight with you over your comments, cuz guess what? Its not worth it to me to fight with someone who is so blatantly biased…If Kristoff is right, then I basically restated what he said and i would think you would know that…
Kristoff: Yes we are on the internet, but where is you from boy? Cuz I am in America, that is what i was saying… And I thought you didnt watch movies based on the books?As FT was saying about me, contradictory much?
Hey Aight, how are you? wanna take the conversation where our intelligence isn’t insulted?
@FFF: Suree! This whole debate’s going nowhere anyway, pretty much nowhere. Plus, I don’t feel like bashing anyone either :O
@FFF
Please do address me appropriately. I’m from the US, while I’m currently studying in the UK. Please do not misconstrue my sentiment that I am not a fan of films based on books, and the idea that I don’t watch them. On the contrary I tend to watch them quite a bit (hence not being a fan of them). I use them to study the differences in writing style, form, function, and construction.
@FT, I’ll beg to differ. As a published journalist, aspiring scriptwriter, and as a person who has spent the last six years studying writing, literature, and with the high possibility of getting my Ph.D as well, I think his points are superficial. They’re highly opinionated and in general don’t concede any good points. It’s not strong writing. His points are contentious at best and I easily refuted them.
That said, Harry Potter isn’t going to be one of the best films of all time by most standards, nor will LOTR. So this discussion is a moot point.
Kristoffer:Well,sorry.looks like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.Sorry i made a mistake,geez…
@Aight: how do want to keep contact?i can give u one of my few emails if u want…stormecat@gmail.com or livgator@yahoo.com. i check both regularly but the yahoo more often…
@FFF: It’s not that I woke up on the wrong side of the bed (in fact I haven’t gone to bed yet…UK remember). No, I’m more insulted by the fact you called me boy. If I recall correctly you said you were 19, yes? That puts me at over half a decade older than you. Consequentially it’s not polite to use indicative pronouns with people you don’t know. I didn’t call you Kiddo, did I, no of course not. I’m merely asking that you show the same respect to me that I’ve afforded you.
@Kristoffer: I apologized for insulting you 2 times already.
I will tell you that I call people boys and girls all the time, but only the people I have a respect for. I even call my sister(over a decade older then me) and my mom(biological or not) about 3 or 4 decades older then me, depending on which mom you talk about because I have known some people for a long time, that they seem like parents to me girls. For me its a term of endearment, not of any insult. I often use the term to tease people, which is what I was doing. Again I will apologize for insulting you when I didn’t mean to.No offense, but this seems badgering or like people trying to use intimidation to me, when after someone apologizes and you keeping bringing it up. Do you expect a different outcome when you repeat yourself? And does using badgering or intimidation seem like you are showing me respect, and it also seems like any time me or aight tries to voice our opinion, we get lambasted for saying it. If it seemed like I was lambasting y0u or saying that you were wrong then I totally apologize for it. And for your information, I don’t care if you call me Kiddo. I dont even care you hate me, because I am a good person. But you know what, I am so tired of explaining myself, and I retract my earlier statement. I will officially say that respect is revoked.
@KM You’re entitled to your opinion too.
@FFF Not sure why you think sarcasm makes you seem smart, intelligent, or superior in some way. However you are entitled shape your character in any way you see fit.
@FT:
1)I wasn’t talking to you. I was talking to KM…
2)I don’t where you got me saying he couldn’t have an opinion…
3)I wasn’t being sarcastic, and you do not know me well enough to say whether I am being sarcastic or not.
Adieu.
Dang…i haven’t come back here in like…2-3 days? Lol…had mock exams currently. Just a few more papers and i’m done xD (can’t wait!).
Anyhoo…whazzap people?
@FFF
You said you were being sarcastic. (post Aug 6th at 10:26 PM) and in that post you addressed me (FT). I didn’t notice any other FT here so it was reasonable to conclude you were addressing me.
My comment to was addressed to @KM when I said he was entitled to his opinion too. I was addressing him – not you.
In light of the above errors you have made I think I’ve also made my case that you seem to contradict yourself.
Aww maan…come on people. This whole thing is never gonna end! Why not let’s just leave this alone? We could go on and on forever whether we like it or not. SO let’s just let it drop, shall we?
)
@FF I’m not using intimidation, though my point about respectable discussion still stands. When ever a discussion like this occurs, I will admit I tend to break down opposing opinions and address individual portions. I’m not lambasting you, but rather continuing the discussion by providing opposing points that can be built upon.
On the matter of the second apology, again it comes down to appearance of respect. While I now understand that you use boy and girl in a sense of endearment, without prior knowledge to this it appeared condescending. Further, your comment of “waking up on the wrong side of the bed” further exacerbated that sense of condescension. (No need to apologize again, I’m merely pointing out the reasoning behind my previous post.)
@FT That is the point I suppose, it’s all opinion.
@KM Exactly. It’s all opinion.
Ah, but you see, there is a great void betwixt educated opinion and peanut gallery opinion. To be blunt (as I assure you I always am) the distance between the opinions on this discussion thread are as vast as the void between Tea Party members (that is the Tea baggers), the Republican Pseudo-orthodox Christian right, and the Liberal Progressive left. The only difference is, amongst us, at least some of us are educated, and amongst those in the political sphere, their education amounts to a whole bunch of beans…get it…beans are legumes which are peanuts…
I’m off to play World of Warcraft. Guess that this thing has bore me for awhile.
Guys, have fun while I have intimate hours with the game
@KM. You appear to be espousing that because you are educated by, and in the manner of, knowledge sources you have personally chosen to adhere to — that it than follows that the opinions held by you and others like you are also inherently superior.
Unfortunately that approach to learning has an inherent flaw in that it isolates your thought realm from potentially useful bodies of knowledge and experience through summary rejection. Without this mechanism the allegedly superior “educated us” body of believers that you adhere to could not exist.
Such an approach to the acquisition and maintenance of knowledge is not really scientific in nature. Instead it seeks to reject notable amounts of knowledge and experience with ridicule and moral posturing.
This behavioral phenomena was well documented in a recent Harvard study that showed clearly the more people attach a sense of superiority to their knowledge as a way of differentiating themselves above others they believed to be less so — the more rapidly and pronounced was their learning deficit.
Because true science doesn’t have a place for ridicule or moral posturing I don’t think that opinions formed or espoused in that manner are all that educated or long term sustainable. But as I said before “you are entitled to your opinion”.
Next Comments →
{ 3 trackbacks }