How come Potterfags and normies would rear their head at you

Harry Potter is shit.

I have never seen any of the movies you've mentioned including harry porter

where is DULLEST

>>82172426
>"Yes!"

>>82172426

It is, publishers needed a shitty rags to riches story for the modern age so they went ahead with it also as an experiment to see if people would actually buy this banal shit. It worked and they won.

>>82172353
>MUH CHILDHOOD
that's why.

I once brought up the Nagini bit during a huge family dinner. commenting about how stupid it was of Voldemort(and Rowling who wrote it) to allow his snake to participate in battle when it held a part of his soul, and boy a lot of my cousins and some 40/50 somethings got pretty upset.

>>82172450
kek

>>82172353
potterposter is getting slower every thread. disappointing desu

>>82172501

>MUH CHILDHOOD CAN BE NO WRONG! POTTER IS AMAZING

This is why western civilization is collapsing.

>>82172353
Harry Potter has a good story whereas Twilight has nothing

Also the writing in Twilight is seriously a lot more abysmal

Because supernatural teen romance is a genre that is inherently not respected, but while Harry Potter may have gone slightly in that direction (I'm honestly just guessing here. I've only read up to the 4th book and watched up to the 3rd movie), it at least didn't start that way. It was more childhood fantasy shit
Past that it's basically just "muh childhood". I mean these books are stupid popular

>>82172550

HOWEVER

>>82172353
www.HPMoR.com

File: patrick.gif (836KB, 286x204px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 286x204px

>>82172353
>why is this children's book not catering to my adult sensibilities?

File: 1482343798164.jpg (725KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

725KB, 1280x850px

>14 replies
>still no DULLEST

File: 1480194209347.jpg (3MB, 1565x2823px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1565x2823px

It isn't really difficult to be a better franchise than 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.

>>82175894
>no pic related
delete this pasta now