Just read that JK Rowling makes about £1million EVERY 3 DAYS.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2
- Thread starter RDCR07
- Start date
MG is right. Each movie gets progressively darker than its predecessor.
She is only the second woman to earn a $1B dollars. Man she would not imagined that in her wildest of dreams when before the first book, she was sitting in a cafe and writing her story on a napkin.
She was broke, a struggling single mother with very little money. Then one day an idea just popped into her head when she was on a train. The idea just hit her. She said she wrote most of the first book on little scraps of paper in cafes to save on the gas and electric in her own flat. She was rejected by the first few publishers she sent her manuscript to, eventually someone picked it up... 14 years down the line, she's made $1billion.
I saw the movie yesterday that it was released here. I liked it, it was good, but the ending was a bloody disaster, I hated it - the whole concept of it; Rowling's attempt to be a serious writer ended up badly. I would have liked something better. The climax was good but not THAT good, as something I would expect from a build-up 7 books long. It was good to be Harry Potter - especially after the 6th one, which was really shit.
Well, it was a best seller good for kids and teenagers - as MG said it got darker and darker until, in my opinion, it failed to live up to its own darkness in the end.
Well, it was a best seller good for kids and teenagers - as MG said it got darker and darker until, in my opinion, it failed to live up to its own darkness in the end.
I <3:
It is a children's book after all
I have to say, the Harry Potter novels are well translated to the big screen. I especially liked the first 3 movies as I feel the more colorful setting and the childish atmosphere is more suited to the series. But looking at the developments I guess the movies getting darker is a normal progress.
I think Alan Rickman was absolutely amazing throughout the whole series. Loved Snape in DH part 2.
I think Alan Rickman was absolutely amazing throughout the whole series. Loved Snape in DH part 2.
Fair play to her too.
I read the other day that the 3 kids (well not kids now) are well up there on the UK's youngest Millionaire list. Shame none of them can actually act.
Anyone else think they'll fade into obscurity afterwards? Emma Watson might go on to better things but surely not Potter and the ginge?
She had the idea on the train from Manchester to London IIRC.
See, Manchester is always involved. I was there, sat across from her, talking about my new idea for a fantasy novel. I'd sue her for millions, but it's just petty isn't it?
See, Manchester is always involved. I was there, sat across from her, talking about my new idea for a fantasy novel. I'd sue her for millions, but it's just petty isn't it?
Funny you should say that Adz because I swear to this day that I had the original idea for The Truman Show.
Very petty, maybe some sort of middle ground, a night out with Emma Watson maybe?
Alan Rickman stole every scene he was in.
Ah man I just watched the third and for a minute I thought it was pretty good because stuff actually went a little bit wrong, and for once Harry didn't save the day by waving a piece of wood at everything. But then voila, deus ex machina crops up in the form of a magical time thingy, everything goes perfectly well once more and Harry actually does save the day...by waving a piece of wood at stuff. I reckon I can probably predict the plot of the fourth one, but first I am going to go watch Matt Damon beat shit up in the Bourne Identity
That will suffice.
What was the deer in the scene about where Harry comes to know about Snape and Dumbledore's discussion?
It's his patronus (a doe). It's has the same form as Lily Potter's patronus (Harry's mother).
Wizards' patronus usually have a distinct form of their own, with the rare occasions where people who love each other having similar patronus. Harry's patronus is a stag, same as his father.
Cheers for the info. Never bought myself to read the books though i understand it will be worthwhile.
Yep, but the Snape is also truly fascinating. Alan did a great job portraying this complex character. Not easy.
That train journey happened in 1990, the year we were both born AdZz. You telling me you'd come up with the idea of a fantasy novel when you were a baby?
So is Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit.
Also AdZz Bonnie Wright, who plays Rons sister, is much prettier than Emma Watson.
I can't say if she is better. But she is definitely beautiful.
Hobbit possibly, but LOTR is for all ages.
Harry Potter is 100% for kids. But lots of adults (including me sadly) have read all the books and enjoyed them
Nah she is definitely better. Only two years younger than me an' all, which I have thought about and decided that I'm ok with.
Get out! I have waited enough already.
LOTR was originally intended to be a children's book, definitely. They were children's books in Tolkien's original vision, but then he kept adding to his fantasy world and it got more and more complicated. Don't even try to read the Silmarillion.
Harry Potter was originally intended for kids but adults can enjoy them (and many do), because there's that fantasy element that appeals to all ages.
Plus there's many young adults like me who were kids when the first books came out and adults with these last films. I'm nearly 21 now, I was 8/9 when I read the first book.
Are you only 22? You're younger than I thought you were (no offence).
Nah, it's for kids and all. Whether adults like reading them as well, doesn't change that. I read LOTR a few years ago, and completely struggled after the first book. There's only so much one can take of one dimensional characters, stupid poems and hobbits. That said, I love dressing up as Gandalf every now and again.
Tolkien is mostly for teenagers and nerds....kids barely understand it -_-
The first LOTR book drags on and on and on. I love LOTR, but my god, the first book is mainly just Frodo and Sam walking through the Shire singing songs and making up poems about birds and trees. Last third of the book is very good but overall the first book is a snooze-fest. The film cut it down excellently.
Well, if you thought the first was a snoozefest, I'd love to know what you thought of the second. I had to put it down after a quarter into it. Unbearable. And don't get me started on Silmarillion.
The genius of grooming in action.
I liked the 2nd and 3rd books, the only part of the LOTR books I don't like is the first two-thirds of the 1st book.
Ahh, the Silmarillion. Not for everyone, to say the least. Actually, hardly ever for anyone might be more appropriate. I liked it, but then I'm a bit crazy.But Spoony, me and you have both read the Brothers Karamazov. We're not scared of a story.
The ironic thing is MG would be more interested if he was 40.
I liked the 2nd and 3rd books, the only part of the LOTR books I don't like is the first two-thirds of the 1st book.
But Spoony, me and you have both read the Brothers Karamazov. We're not scared of a story.
Yes, but BK is complex and full of rich characters, it's not really a comparison, to be fair. Actually, now that you've mentioned Karamazov, I must go back and finish Notes of the Underground. But yeah, BK was a difficult book to get into, god knows how many times I asked myself 'er...now who's that Mitya again?!'. I think it's difficult to understand the nuances in Russian nicknames, well for us outsiders it is. Cracking book, though, one of the best surely.
What are you blind? Emma Watson is way prettier.
The Harry Potter series is so overrated.
The problem with the Harry Potter films has always been, and will always be when watching them, the kids.
They're all unanimously awful. It was patently clear from even the very first film that the little ginger one was the only one with any kind of onscreen personality, but unfortunately everyone pointed this out, meaning he felt quite content with his contribution and never progressed beyond the "mugging at the camera like a 10 year old" stage of acting....Which you can get away with when you're 10. Not really when you're 20-whatever.
Watson has all the charm and allure of a nest of tables and the supporting cast (bad blonde one, ginger twins....especially the fecking ginger twins!) are about as interesting as having the quickest route to Doncaster using only B roads, explained to you by a trainspotter with a brummie accent.
The main problem of course is Radcliffe, who is the wettest sponge of a lead actor as I've ever seen in anything...He's not necessarily the worst actor of the lot, but he is the lead, and as such, a lot rests on him being at least passably interesting, which he simply isn't. Usually when you have a shit lead you can offset it by a good baddie, but such is the structure of this series that the baddie is never there, so instead you've just got endless, endless Potter and everything is about Potter, and he does fecking everything...
It's basically that that relegates these films to kids flicks and nothing more (even though they obviously are anyway, but they were intended to get more grown up as they went along in line with the characters/readerships ages) because watching any of the exposition scenes in any of the films is torture for anyone but kids and the hard core afficionados (who know whats going to happen anyway) and akin to watching my shoes trying to have a conversation....but without me doing funny voices for them...Literally just watching my shoes.
They're all unanimously awful. It was patently clear from even the very first film that the little ginger one was the only one with any kind of onscreen personality, but unfortunately everyone pointed this out, meaning he felt quite content with his contribution and never progressed beyond the "mugging at the camera like a 10 year old" stage of acting....Which you can get away with when you're 10. Not really when you're 20-whatever.
Watson has all the charm and allure of a nest of tables and the supporting cast (bad blonde one, ginger twins....especially the fecking ginger twins!) are about as interesting as having the quickest route to Doncaster using only B roads, explained to you by a trainspotter with a brummie accent.
The main problem of course is Radcliffe, who is the wettest sponge of a lead actor as I've ever seen in anything...He's not necessarily the worst actor of the lot, but he is the lead, and as such, a lot rests on him being at least passably interesting, which he simply isn't. Usually when you have a shit lead you can offset it by a good baddie, but such is the structure of this series that the baddie is never there, so instead you've just got endless, endless Potter and everything is about Potter, and he does fecking everything...
It's basically that that relegates these films to kids flicks and nothing more (even though they obviously are anyway, but they were intended to get more grown up as they went along in line with the characters/readerships ages) because watching any of the exposition scenes in any of the films is torture for anyone but kids and the hard core afficionados (who know whats going to happen anyway) and akin to watching my shoes trying to have a conversation....but without me doing funny voices for them...Literally just watching my shoes.
^ Here we go again. First Transformers and now Harry Potter? But I do agree with Daniel Radcliffe being a shit actor.