Harry Potter Series

[ShadowDeity]

Hey guys,

 

So i was talking to a couple people the other day.  They seemed unimpressed that I have never read or watched the Harry Potter series. 

 

lol, is that bad?  Should I probably do that?

 

[Dredgy]

You probably should. Read at least, the movies are skippable.

[ALwin]

6 hours ago, ShadowDeity said:

Hey guys,

 

So i was talking to a couple people the other day.  They seemed unimpressed that I have never read or watched the Harry Potter series. 

 

lol, is that bad?  Should I probably do that?

 

Be warned, the ending in the final book is more detailed than in the movie, it's a lot better.  The ending in the final movie is like an action flick.

[Albatross]

The Harry Potter series is grossly overrated. People act like it is gold...it isn't. Decent, sure, but nothing more.

 

I say read Wheel of Time, A Song of Ice and Fire, Outlander, The Kingkiller Chronicle, Witch World, Malazan Book of the Fallen or Sherlock Holmes (Complete Works) instead. And then Harry Potter. While I thought the movies were entertaining, I would advice against starting with the movies if you read at all. Books > movies always.

[Unhelpful]

8 hours ago, ShadowDeity said:

Hey guys,

So i was talking to a couple people the other day.  They seemed unimpressed that I have never read or watched the Harry Potter series. 

lol, is that bad?  Should I probably do that?

Yeah. Just don't worry about that. It's kind of REALLY overrated. If you really want to look into it, just binge the books. The movies were well-done and well-cast, but there wasn't much detail to them, which is just kind of how the book to movie translation works.

 

58 minutes ago, Albatross said:

The Harry Potter series is grossly overrated. People act like it is gold...it isn't. Decent, sure, but nothing more.

 

I typed this then realized it was insanely spoiler-rich. Read at your own risk OP:

Spoiler

I get strung up when I say that. It was pretty alright. Book 1 was a good opener. 3 was pretty good. 5 was good. The ending was shit. "Hmm... I've been building up a Jesus character to die for 7 books. But I have no guts. Just going to let him live and have a boring 'happily ever after' ending." Oooh and lets partially negate Dumbledore's death with a white-room scene. Books usually > movies. Not true with Forrest Gump. That book was crap.

[ShadowDeity]

3 hours ago, JoeyDM said:

Yeah. Just don't worry about that. It's kind of REALLY overrated. If you really want to look into it, just binge the books. The movies were well-done and well-cast, but there wasn't much detail to them, which is just kind of how the book to movie translation works.

 

 

I typed this then realized it was insanely spoiler-rich. Read at your own risk OP:

  Hide contents

I get strung up when I say that. It was pretty alright. Book 1 was a good opener. 3 was pretty good. 5 was good. The ending was shit. "Hmm... I've been building up a Jesus character to die for 7 books. But I have no guts. Just going to let him live and have a boring 'happily ever after' ending." Oooh and lets partially negate Dumbledore's death with a white-room scene. Books usually > movies. Not true with Forrest Gump. That book was crap.

hahaha thanks for the spoiler warning - much appreciated.  I probably shouldn't have read it but it was too tempting...   Well I mean I always thought people hold it on some pedestal that it shouldn't be on.  But maybe that's just me.  I'll get around to it sometime I guess.

[Starelementpoke]

12 hours ago, ShadowDeity said:

Hey guys,

 

So i was talking to a couple people the other day.  They seemed unimpressed that I have never read or watched the Harry Potter series. 

 

lol, is that bad?  Should I probably do that?

 

 

5 hours ago, Albatross said:

The Harry Potter series is grossly overrated. People act like it is gold...it isn't. Decent, sure, but nothing more.

 

I say read Wheel of Time, A Song of Ice and Fire, Outlander, The Kingkiller Chronicle, Witch World, Malazan Book of the Fallen or Sherlock Holmes (Complete Works) instead. And then Harry Potter. While I thought the movies were entertaining, I would advice against starting with the movies if you read at all. Books > movies always.

Is it bad I´ve re-read them like 40 times then? Because I find the books really good. Not the be all end all, but really good.

[ShadowDeity]

2 minutes ago, Starelementpoke said:

 

Is it bad I´ve re-read them like 40 times then? Because I find the books really good. Not the be all end all, but really good.

Nah man, I think It's bad I haven't read them!    I've re-read and re-watched things a bunch of times before.  Haha, that's why we're in free countries.

[Starelementpoke]

Just now, ShadowDeity said:

Nah man, I think It's bad I haven't read them!    I've re-read and re-watched things a bunch of times before.  Haha, that's why we're in free countries.

Lol, well that´s good then. I´d recommend you read them certainly, they´re quite good. Used to be my favorite series.

[Crowes]

4 hours ago, JoeyDM said:

 

I typed this then realized it was insanely spoiler-rich. Read at your own risk OP:

  Hide contents

I get strung up when I say that. It was pretty alright. Book 1 was a good opener. 3 was pretty good. 5 was good. The ending was shit. "Hmm... I've been building up a Jesus character to die for 7 books. But I have no guts. Just going to let him live and have a boring 'happily ever after' ending." Oooh and lets partially negate Dumbledore's death with a white-room scene. Books usually > movies. Not true with Forrest Gump. That book was crap.

 

Spoiler

In my opinion, it was that the ending wasn't satisfying.  It failed at being mysterious and philosophical to a decent extent, and finding the horcruxes wasn't at all rewarding. "Yay, we defeated Voldemort", and went pretty poorly about it, too. 

 

They were nice movies, but as you age, you see how they rely on the imagination of a child. Once you gain that mature grasp on reality and what can and can't be, the enchantment dies off and it's more of... "well, that was fun."

 

I often find myself exploring different cultures to find other forms of story-telling; story-telling that will leave me, as a "mature" child, genuinely enchanted, emotionally moved. These movies failed to do that, for me. I ended up only feeling a sense of "...that was it?"

[Real_PhillBert]

I really liked the books, the movies were good too; but like most movies based on books, the book was better.

 

I havent read the books or seen any of the movies in some time though.

[Volbet]

Whether or not the books and movies are good all depends on the person. Personally, the whole Harry Potter univers didn't really speak to me, but I might be born a bit too early to have been caught in the zeitgeist surrounding them.

 

But I would say that you should read the books just becuase of the sheer cultural impact they have had. 

The Harry Potter franchise has pretty much determined how every young adult fantasy series has been marketed in our time. 

[dalekphalm]

8 hours ago, Albatross said:

The Harry Potter series is grossly overrated. People act like it is gold...it isn't. Decent, sure, but nothing more.

 

I say read Wheel of Time, A Song of Ice and Fire, Outlander, The Kingkiller Chronicle, Witch World, Malazan Book of the Fallen or Sherlock Holmes (Complete Works) instead. And then Harry Potter. While I thought the movies were entertaining, I would advice against starting with the movies if you read at all. Books > movies always.

I think the HP series is pretty solid - but it IS a young adult series. Still, definitely worth reading and watching.

 

I'm personally weird, while I do agree that the books are generally better than movie adaptations, I prefer to watch the movie first, THEN read the books. Why? Because I constantly see people watch a pretty good movie adaptation, and then say "The books were so much better!" It takes away from how good a movie is, if you're comparing it to a book that will always be more detailed and less watered down.

 

I watch the movie first, enjoy it if it's good, then I read the book, and get to experience the (usually) better and more detailed story. I find it's more enjoyable this way.

 

BTW, I second Wheel of Time. It's my favourite book series of all time. I'll also suggest the Mistborn series (The original era Trilogy, and the in-progress Waxilliam era Quadrilogy).

[Albatross]

10 hours ago, JoeyDM said:

Yeah. Just don't worry about that. It's kind of REALLY overrated. If you really want to look into it, just binge the books. The movies were well-done and well-cast, but there wasn't much detail to them, which is just kind of how the book to movie translation works.

 

 

I typed this then realized it was insanely spoiler-rich. Read at your own risk OP:

  Reveal hidden contents

I get strung up when I say that. It was pretty alright. Book 1 was a good opener. 3 was pretty good. 5 was good. The ending was shit. "Hmm... I've been building up a Jesus character to die for 7 books. But I have no guts. Just going to let him live and have a boring 'happily ever after' ending." Oooh and lets partially negate Dumbledore's death with a white-room scene. Books usually > movies. Not true with Forrest Gump. That book was crap.

I never read the book for Forrest Gump, but I'm not going to argue the point—the movie is superb. Hard to imagine something could be better than it. lol

 

6 hours ago, Starelementpoke said:

 

Is it bad I´ve re-read them like 40 times then? Because I find the books really good. Not the be all end all, but really good.

No, not bat at all. Overrated doesn't mean they aren't good.

 

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I think the HP series is pretty solid - but it IS a young adult series. Still, definitely worth reading and watching.

 

I'm personally weird, while I do agree that the books are generally better than movie adaptations, I prefer to watch the movie first, THEN read the books. Why? Because I constantly see people watch a pretty good movie adaptation, and then say "The books were so much better!" It takes away from how good a movie is, if you're comparing it to a book that will always be more detailed and less watered down.

 

I watch the movie first, enjoy it if it's good, then I read the book, and get to experience the (usually) better and more detailed story. I find it's more enjoyable this way.

 

BTW, I second Wheel of Time. It's my favourite book series of all time. I'll also suggest the Mistborn series (The original era Trilogy, and the in-progress Waxilliam era Quadrilogy).

Oh, it is worth reading, I'd just suggest others over it first. And I loved the movies, as I thought they were great adaptations, but for me I guess I just prefer reading the stories for the details the movies usually leave out or can't replicate.

 

I still haven't read the Mistborn series...gotta do that someday.