With all the stephen kike shilling, lets get back to the REAL

gilf

>Jewish Kike Rowling

>>87554276
Incorrect on all counts.

Well done kid, you outdone yourself.

>>87554276
Even if it's true, why are you so obsessed with it? Why do you want to prove other people that she's a 'hack'? Why do you want to insult her?

>>87554276
>he didn't grow up reading the books

feel bad for your childhood famo. these books were fantastic and I still read them to this day.

>>87554276
This 'talentless hack' is half a billion richer than you for pumping out such supposed shit. If she can earn so much by being so crap why aren't you as rich?

>>87554276
t. muggle

>>87554312
>>87554341
>>87554385
>>87554497
>>87554756
has /tv/ always been this reddit?

>>87554838
its just you being retarded

dullest

Where the fuck is the pasta guy

I only came here to read it ffs

>>87554838
>>>/r/eddit/

Go home, son. You are out of your depth.

>>87554385
How typical that a millennial would suggest a J.K Rowling 'novel'. After all, she is the author of 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
"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.

>>87555044

you forgot the pic

6/10

>>87554341
Instead of addressing the matter at hand in an argumentative fashion, you try to make some point at a meta level that, in truth, is completely interchangeable with any subject matter. For example, if OP were to criticize a bag of chips, you could say "even if it's true that the chips suck, why are you so obsessed with them?". Basically, the way you are approaching this is completely devoid of content or meaning, and you sound a lot less intelligent than you think.

>>87554276
>the careers of the main cast of harry potter all died after the series ended
Emma Watson is huge right now. Daniel Radcliffe is enjoying doing more artsy stuff. Rest don't have to work because Harry Potter made them enough money.

>Fantastic Breasts and Where to Find them the movie was a shitty cashgrab
Yep.

>her "sequel" play that she wrote for harry potter and the cursed child turned out to be absolute crap and everyone shat on them
She didn't write it. Jack Thorne wrote it. As far as Cursed Child goes, most people agree the first half is great but the second half is garbage.

>the non-harry potter, "adult" novels that she wrote afterwards all were abysmally shit
>the books that she published under a pseudonym failed to gain any recognition and undersaled massively
Yeah, but at the same time, she came up with Harry Potter and that made her super rich. Doesn't really matter if everything else she does is mediocre to shit.

File: The magical realm of Hogwarts.png (915KB, 1686x1864px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 1686x1864px

>>87555429
>She didn't write it. Jack Thorne wrote it.
She's got writing credit on it, so she at least bears the responsibility for it going out the door.
It suggests she either approved of the fanfiction tier shit that went on, or ignored it for the sake of cash grabbing.
Given the shit she writes on Pottermore, I'm inclined to go with the former

>>87555752
I was really discombobulated by it.

Shit was ridiculous

>>87554497

Found the Fifty Shades fan.

>>87555044
>"stretched his legs."

This never stops being funny. It makes the whole piece.

>>87556042
It's funnier when you discover he practically he made it up

The worst part of the movies were how they completely butchered Ron's character and gave all of his positive traits to Hermione, and all of Hermione's negative traits to Ron

Shit, even a lot of Harry's good shit went to Hermione

I guess the writers/directors really wanted to fuck Emma or something

>>87554276
> careers ended

Emma starred in the highest grossing film of the year (Beauty and the Beast) and has a lot of other shit coming out and so has Daniel. Rupert is the only one of the main trio who was left behind. Two out of three is pretty good.

Even Neville is still to be seen in major productions, he was in that british flick with Emilia Clarke and the paralyzed guy in the wheelchair.

And Tom Felton for example just wasn't that into acting.

Book 4-on should've been more adult and their movie adaptations should've all been rated R, they would've been good.

File: 1504942311843.jpg (43KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1440x1080px

>Be a writer
>Every writer on Twitter has their Harry Potter house on their profile
>Rowling is the most influential author for an entire generation of wannabe writers

>>87556681

Rupert probably could have had a good film career post HP, but I don't think he actually cared.

>>87554276
I hate this bitch, not for her work though. Despite growing up at a time when alot of people my age read her books I have never read them. Not my thing.
No this bitch is the reason my favourite holiday destination is filled with retarded fans of the franchise wanting to ride the hogwarts express.
There are other factors for the massive influx of tourists there but she is a large factor. Fuck her.

>>87556881
>having a social media

>>87556881
Harry Potter, like the other YA crazes, was lightning in a bottle, so you probably shouldn't worry.
Now I think about it, there hasn't been any YA crazes like Harry Potter, Twilight, His Dark Materials or Hunger Games for a while now.

dunno why she's the renowned one but stephanie meyer gets left in the dust

both take established concepts
both butcher them
both sprinkle on their paper thin plots and call the garnish the meal

it's uninspired, that's the kindest thing i can say about it

>>87558035
Sorry if I'm being dense, but do you mean that Meyer shouldn't be as maligned since Rowling is as bad if not worse, or that Rowling leaves Meyer in the dust in general?

If the former, it's because Meyer made pretty much no effort to hide her self insert fantasy, and shat on the fans when they finally realised it wasn't about them.
For all her faults, Rowling was good at pandering to her crowd.
Twilight also has a lot more things that are fucked up on a surface level, rather than HP having really fucked up concepts once you think about them

File: 492cd9c43c849e4a09561a4a37851672fa05c185bc94366154e029fd19455781.jpg (1MB, 1623x2886px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1623x2886px

>>87554276
Why didn't the "wizards" just cast themselves out of the dullest franchise 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 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.

>>87558322
>not the clifford version
out.

She's such annoying bitch. Would hate fuck though.

>>87555339
Literally every point in the OP is false. There is nothing to argue.

>>87554276
Is that jodi west

>>87557296
holy fuck you are retarded

>>87554276
I don't care about all that, what really pisses me off is her twitter.