And this. Don't expect to understand all the intricacies of the world if you're only paying attention to the watered-down version. As a movie-goer, you're not supposed to care about the exact way wands work, only that the Elder Wand allows its owner to perform powerful magic that is impossible without it. And really, you should be able to understand why Voldemort wants to kill Harry, even if you've only seen the movies. In this regard, you're just being oblivious. "
I read the first two, but the writing style just isn't my cup of tea... it just makes you stupid... you can't go from reading books like "Nature of the book" and "beyond good and evil" to some crappy kids thing. On the fiction front, even the warcraft sunwell trilogy or w/e it was called was written better. The only thing rollin has going for her is the concept, and i'm trying to enjoy it, but it just doesn't seem to answer all the questions. I really enjoyed some of the movies, like the tri wizard cup one. But the 6th and 7th one... nothing is happening and they ruin the ambience by overdoing the whole no music scene trick... but that should not be used to much when the film is fantasy... They don't seem to like explain things, i mean why is Harry Potter and his friends, whom basically just graduated on par with like death eaters who have been killing people for like decades probably, its not like any given wizard is different from another so that you could explain "harry potter is a light wizard and death eaters are dark ones so light beats dark, but dark beats others, while others beat light". That would already make more sense than a bunch of kids going against the master of all killers, not to mention that the griffindor sword can be wielded by anyone apparently so why didn't the minister of magic send like his top wizards to just go and kill Voldermorts heart.
I'll try to address each of your complaints in turn:
1. If you have trouble enjoying literature on a sub-Nietzsche-ian level, maybe it would have been prudent not to allow the strong concept to draw you into the film series. Remember: a big chunk of the audience consists of people who simply can't be bothered to read a 600-page novel, not so much of people who couldn't stomach the simplicity of the writing. Also, like most film adaptations, the movie series is meant primarily to make money, secondarily to provide faithful translations sans "crappy kids" writing style. So while the filmmakers sometimes get lucky--namely when strong direction and acting come together with a less difficult-to-convert story--each Harry Potter movie still has a pretty good chance of being shit. With a lot of obscure backstory stuff coming into play in this latest film, I can understand that you'd be frustrated with the gaps left by the omissions of its predecessors. Maybe you should just accept that, despite its intriguing premise, the Harry Potter series is not for you, in any form.
2. I find it a little strange that you're interested in the idea of a school for wizards, yet can't sufficiently suspend your disbelief to accept that these kids are holding their own against the Death Eaters. I remember the books being better in this regard, but even the films generally show that Harry & Co. are overmatched when pitted against Voldemort's gang. In 5, Harry and his friends are effectively beat before older wizards arrive to help them; in 6, Harry is easily dispatched upon trying to pursue Dumbledore's killers; in part 1 of 7, the main trio is usually up against Snatchers (bounty hunters whose abilities are not necessarily of any particular note), yet must still remain constantly moving to avoid them. And even past all this, you should be ready to accept that, in a story about kids, kids might be disproportionately able.
3. The books went into more detail about the Ministry's uselessness. I won't try to summarize--I've already written way too much. Suffice it to say that no administration between Voldemort's return and fall is fit to aid Dumbledore and Harry in their quest to destroy the Horcruxes.
Don't expect to understand all the intricacies of the world if you're only paying attention to the watered-down version. As a movie-goer, you're not supposed to care about the exact way wands work, only that the Elder Wand allows its owner to perform powerful magic that is impossible without it.
And really, you should be able to understand why Voldemort wants to kill Harry, even if you've only seen the movies. In this regard, you're just being oblivious.
I still hate him for being an awful decision-maker and a weak politician, but his generally well-meaning foolishness is preferable to the aggressive idiocy of the Palinists and the straight-up deplorability of the Gingrichists. It's kind of funny: today's Republican spotlight is held jointly by 1) people very closely resembling the caricatures of Bush's intellectual shortcomings and 2) people very closely resembling the actualities of his puppet-master advisors.
Of course I agree with the main point, but he lost me at the trans fat comparison. It doesn't match up at all. Any 65-year-old who's spent his life shoveling fried chicken down his gullet can get MediCare, meaning that the mistake of maintaing such a poor diet is a mistake for whose correction the government is in some way responsible. Therefore, it's not unreasonable that the government would want some regulatory power in the food/nutrition arena; such power allows it to reduce the injustice of the situation: that responsible people who make an effort to eat healthy are paying for the treatment of some ass who's too lazy to resist the opposite temptation. I would think that someone like Limbaugh would be all for that reduction. Not only that, but if the government makes people eat better, then people will need less health care, and taxes that go toward those services will drop. I would think that Limbaugh would be all for that, too.
But there's no parallel in the video game issue. The government has no stake in it. No taxpayer money is going toward any form of aid for specifically those kids that have allegedly been adversely affected by video games (few and far between, I must assume, and perhaps no greater in number than those who have been equivalently affected by literature or film or television). So if they want to regulate my food, that's fine; their responsibility to take care of me when that food does harm me earns them the right to do that. But if they're going to sit there doing nothing about the so-called threats of video games-- which, by all means, Government, continue to do; they exist only in a negligible, government intervention-unworthy form, anyway-- then they need to SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET THE FUCK OUT.
Log in to comment