6>3 debate me.

who gives a shit about these fucking kids movies

>>83361756
le me

>>83361706
In my opinion, Hy Pntter Ai 3LOOD CE really doesn't stand up to Hy Pntter Ai SONER ABAN.

>>83361756
>Not watching Harry Potter and using it as evidence for your position in a political debate

Lol fucking Death Eater Drumpfkin

File: hpanon.jpg (1MB, 1623x2886px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1623x2886px

>>83361706
Debate you on what? On 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.

File: coach.jpg (98KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 640x960px

>>83361975
>"No!"
every time
why is it in quotes, it doesn't make any sense

>>83361975
Best boy

5 and 6 were probably the most butchered when it comes to adapting the books. It's weird 7 got two parts but 5 and 6 got massively cut instead.

Is my opinion wrong if i think that the part 1 was the best one? After 3 of course.

>>83361706
>debate me
>doesn't provide argument for your claim

It's obviously: 3 > 1 > 2, with the rest being utter trash. Obviously they butchered the books but it doesn't even matter, a movie is supposed to stay on it's own and the latter don't.

>>83361975
>The Gay Gatsby
>Dumas
>God tier
Well, at least it saves me replying to your post if you rely on that crap.

Draco is sexy af

7>8

>>83361706
3>6

>>83361706
6 was the most fun. I like lucky Harry
it's also my favorite of the books

6>3>7.1>The rest of them who cares