Can anyone explain to me why these movies are popular? They're

>>79636692
No theyre terrible. MY gf and I attempted marathonning all of them and we gave up halfway through 2.

>They're not terrible, just meh.
Exactly, people absolutely adore mediocrity
It's why Adele wins every award and why McDonalds is a gajillion dollar company
Mediocrity is the safe middle ground between good and bad, if you stick with mediocre stuff you never have to worry or think

John Williams elevated these flicks from an average 3/10 to an average 5/10

>>79636729
I wouldn't recommend marathoning any series with this many movies, regardless of quality.

>>79636692
Because they got good enough reviews and you can never underestimate the power of nostalgia
Also if you read the books as a kid ypu were "smart"

File: potter.jpg (1MB, 1596x2850px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1596x2850px

OP, I have to tell you - and boy, am I glad you made this thread because, frankly, I love saying this - I agree with you almost 100%. HOWEVER, I would go one step further. I would say they're an adaption of one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

>>79636729
Why did you emphasize "MY"? Who else's gf would it be?

>>79636749
This mentality needs to change man. People settle down for mediocre shit, then they wonder why they're having shit lives.

Enough is enough

File: 1333651628640.jpg (6KB, 246x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 246x250px

>>79636729
>marathonning
Excuse me? The correct term is BINGE now

>>79636827
It's absolutely natural though.
Eat the dull green berries, the purple ones might taste nicer but you know the dull green ones aren't poison, etc.
The mind craves safety, that isn't going to go away.

>>79636749
Wow can i copy this?
Im serious thats good

They're popular because the books are popular. No one thinks the movies are great AFAIK even the imdb scores are average.

>>79636796

Nice intro

>>79636692
kids grew up with them

File: Knives.jpg (763KB, 2640x1536px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 2640x1536px

>>79636692
Can anyone explain to me why these movies are popular? They're not terrible, just meh. Why do they have such an autistic fanbase?

Go ahead and say the same thing about Star Wars... because you're right.

>>79638786
No one in reality defends these movies.