We need our own list.
>>80158764
where's harry potter?
>>80158764
Bump
>>80158815
kek, I was trying to shitpost without fully reading the list, I didn't think they would actually have included it. I thought they hated it over there.
>>80158764
I don't even read that many books and I can tell this is hipster bait.
Compile a bunch of anons top 10s and make a list. But make sure not to include obvious bait lists with movies like TDKR.
>>80158764
>>80158794
Does anyone else think Harry Potter has been one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises? 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 r-right
"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.
>>80160907
Looks like IMDb
>>80160907
reddit except a few
>>80160986
>>80161113
You do realize that this was a list made in 2013 where every patrician in 4chan had left or stopped trying
This is the reddit crowd mostly
I only posted it because that's clearly the reason we don't need a more reddit list of 2017
>>80161154
Are you going to pretend 2011 was any better?
>>80161344
I remember that /tv/ poll, though. It wasn't an exclusively /tv/ thing really. Most of the /tv/ users bullshitted because /tv/ never gave straight answers and a whole bunch of votes are people with other home boards.
We don't make great lists, really. Because /tv/ has been for a long time a board where people from all other boards come to hang out. Film knowledge here ranges from great to almost non-existent. /lit/ is another kind of board. Only people who actually read, or at least pretend to, go to /lit/.
>>80159996
It's not even the only meme book on the list.
>>80160907
>where's harry potter?
>>80158764
you aren't 'we' redditor
>>80158764
>Book of Disquiet
>No Message
>No Saramago nor Queiroz
FUCK OFF!
>>80160907
Where is No Country for Old Men!?
Tell me I misread it!
>>80158764
>Catcher in the Rye over Gatsby
Trash list.
>>80164011
>Gatsby included
>Pretentious Faggot in the Rye
I hope this is a /lit/ joke.
>>80158764
He is the list.
>>80164522
DRUMPF BTFO
>>80158764
the bible better than faust? come the fuck on
Everybody get out of my way. Real patrician coming through.