Am I the only person who hated...

[amyk]

the Harry Potter movies?

I LOVED the books, I could read them yearly. I don't get hung up on details that were left out or changed, I know this is necessary for movie making, but the entire tone was different. They are children's books, and in practically every scene there is something to smile about, but the movies tend toward darkness minus so much of the humor that I sit there hating every minute. After we saw the latest movie we went home and my 13 year old read us the final scenes from Deathly Hallows, so that we could finish the story properly. I laughed and cried, it is so well done. I just didn't get this kind of feeling from the movies at all.

[joannqn]

I felt the movies were ok, at best.

 

I wish Peter Jackson could have done them. :001_smile:

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I love the books about a gazillion times better than the movies, but I think they did a fairly good job of representing the books in the movies. I usually don't like movies based on books, but the HP movies are an exception. I think they are fun and well-cast and beautifully bring to life many of the elements that can only be imagined in the books.

[Mrs Mungo]

I like the books and the movies. But, they are very different vehicles and even tell slightly different stories from each other.

 

Now, if you *really* want to discuss movies that completely messed up the story? We can discuss Lord of the Rings. :D

 

Well I may be the only person not in love with the movies AND the books. I bought the first book recently and made it about halfway through and it's meh.. I saw two of the movies on TV and didn't love either one of them

 

I won't say I hated them, but I didn't get all that excited about them either.

 

The third book is where she truly finds her groove and things pick up. :)

[amyk]

I think the books are just ok until the Prisoner of Azkaban. But you may have to like the fantasy genre in general to enjoy them.

[amyk]

Now, if you *really* want to discuss movies that completely messed up the story? We can discuss Lord of the Rings. :D

 

 

I agree with this, although I liked The Two Towers. Return of the King was just painfully long. I think movies can suffer from LOTR syndrome--the story is SOO epic and SOO important that every look and every moment must drag out endlessly to do it justice.

[vettechmomof2]

I like the books and the movies. But, they are very different vehicles and even tell slightly different stories from each other.

 

Now, if you *really* want to discuss movies that completely messed up the story? We can discuss Lord of the Rings. :D

 

 

 

The third book is where she truly finds her groove and things pick up. :)

 

:iagree:

[Slartibartfast]

 

I wish Peter Jackson could have done them. :001_smile:

 

Judging by LOtR I don't think he would have done better

[LaxMom]

Movies based on books always feel like an affront to me. They're "wrong" compared to the images in my head.

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree with this, although I liked The Two Towers. Return of the King was just painfully long. I think movies can suffer from LOTR syndrome--the story is SOO epic and SOO important that every look and every moment must drag out endlessly to do it justice.

 

The problem with those movies, imo, is that they cut too much out of the first two movies. Then, they had so much to cram into the third movie that they couldn't even do it in a way that made sense. It left gaping holes in the plot and huge questions for anyone who had not read the books. My argument has always been the first book should have been split into two movies. I think it would have worked out much better if they had done that.

 

My biggest problem with the whole trilogy is that Peter Jackson *spectacularly* missed the point of the books. That is evidenced by the fact that they cut out the scouring of the shire.

[WishboneDawn]

Didn't much care for most of the ones I've seen. Hated Goblet and Prince. Phoenix was good.

 

I can only take so much of Emma Watson's "waggling eyebrows" methods of expressing emotion. Watch her eyebrows. Now I've just ruined the movies forever for everybody.

 

To me the movies often felt like they were trying to cram too much of the books in instead of keeping to the spirit of the books. That's sort of where I thought LOTR succeeded. They changed a LOT of the story but it still felt like LOTR to me. Most of the HP movies just felt like a play-by-play account of the books.

[meggie]

No, you are not the only one. In my opinion, the movies are poor adaptations of the books. And believe me, I understand the difference between portraying something in the written word and portraying it in visual format. I understand why the movie makers felt they had to make things flashier.

 

But the way the screenplays are written, the characters' motivations often make no sense. If I hadn't read the books, I would have had no idea what was going on. They leave things out because of time (necessary) but pick it back up in later movies with no explanation.

 

My husband and I have dissected these movies over and over again. Well, we pretty much do that with all movies. But these movies leave so much to be wanting. Number three is the one I think was done the best; the kids were better actors than in 1&2 (with the exception of Hermione being overly melodramatic, which she does in #4 too) the story made sense, it wasn't so long because they weren't trying to shove in superfluous details. The only qualm I have with it is that it never explains how Lupin knew about the map (because he was one of the four who created it). If you hadn't read the book, you were left guessing. Major plot hole, imo.

 

We are super big film snobs though. There aren't many that come out that we like

[Unicorn.]

I like the books and the movies. But, they are very different vehicles and even tell slightly different stories from each other.

 

Now, if you *really* want to discuss movies that completely messed up the story? We can discuss Lord of the Rings. :D

 

 

 

The third book is where she truly finds her groove and things pick up. :)

 

Or Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief. Now that one, I absolutely HATED. The only thing that was remotely the same as the book was the title, and the character's names.

 

I didn't love all of the Harry Potter movies, but part one (of DH) was very well done and I am looking forward to seeing part 2.

[WishboneDawn]

The problem with those movies, imo, is that they cut too much out of the first two movies. Then, they had so much to cram into the third movie that they couldn't even do it in a way that made sense. It left gaping holes in the plot and huge questions for anyone who had not read the books. My argument has always been the first book should have been split into two movies. I think it would have worked out much better if they had done that.

 

My biggest problem with the whole trilogy is that Peter Jackson *spectacularly* missed the point of the books. That is evidenced by the fact that they cut out the scouring of the shire.

 

What was the point though? From what I've read Tolkien wanted to tell an epic tale. I know some claim he wanted to make a point about war and industry but as far as I've read he denied that himself. But I will admit a book can take on a meaning beyond the author's intent.

 

Just me but I'd rather a reworked version that works as a movie, even if it does change key points, then a scene-by-scene reenactment on screen. I can always go back to the book for that version. I don't wnat exactly the same experience from a movie.

[Slartibartfast]

What was the point though? From what I've read Tolkien wanted to tell an epic tale. I know some claim he wanted to make a point about war and industry but as far as I've read he denied that himself. But I will admit a book can take on a meaning beyond the author's intent.

 

Just me but I'd rather a reworked version that works as a movie, even if it does change key points, then a scene-by-scene reenactment on screen. I can always go back to the book for that version. I don't wnat exactly the same experience from a movie.

 

He wanted to provide England with a legend of her very own, he knew most originated elsewhere.

 

One theme was he used was about how war will always arrive on your doorstep and will change you no matter how far away and protected you seem to be. Much of the actual books were read first by his son in the trenches during WW2. The hobbits whined a bit about staying in the Shire but had they NOT gone and gained those skills they might not have been able to save it when war did come.

 

He made it clear his books were not necessarily about the war, but that moral is very present. Of course the wars affected his view.

 

The characters didn't go through all of it because they wanted to be brave or gain honor. They were doing what they had to do.

 

He screwed that up, he messed up all the characters and added lame stuff in place of actual canon.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Sis

[catz]

I like the books and the movies. But, they are very different vehicles and even tell slightly different stories from each other.

 

Now, if you *really* want to discuss movies that completely messed up the story? We can discuss Lord of the Rings. :D

 

 

 

The third book is where she truly finds her groove and things pick up. :)

 

:iagree: with all of the above (including the Lord of the Rings!) I had to force myself to read book 1 and 2. But after reading the whole series, I got quite a bit more out of reading the early books again. It's a well constructed story. Not flawless, but good. Movies are not quite the same story, but we enjoyed them anyway.

[gingersmom]

My kids have seen all the movies so I have seen bits and pieces of them. I am not a fan of the movies either.

 

I did see the midnight showing of Book 7 and enjoyed it as a good movie. I haven't read the book yet so I have nothing to compare it to.

[catz]

 

My husband and I have dissected these movies over and over again. Well, we pretty much do that with all movies. But these movies leave so much to be wanting. Number three is the one I think was done the best; the kids were better actors than in 1&2 (with the exception of Hermione being overly melodramatic, which she does in #4 too) the story made sense, it wasn't so long because they weren't trying to shove in superfluous details. The only qualm I have with it is that it never explains how Lupin knew about the map (because he was one of the four who created it). If you hadn't read the book, you were left guessing. Major plot hole, imo.

 

We are super big film snobs though. There aren't many that come out that we like

 

LOL - had the same discussion here. Film #3 still seems the most well done to us as a stand-alone movie. Absolutely would not have made sense had you not read the book. Honestly, I don't understand why you'd go to 8 films without reading the books? I could see the first couple maybe.

[Mrs Mungo]

What was the point though? From what I've read Tolkien wanted to tell an epic tale. I know some claim he wanted to make a point about war and industry but as far as I've read he denied that himself. But I will admit a book can take on a meaning beyond the author's intent.

 

You don't have en epic hero unless there is a change. There was no demonstrable change.

 

Tolkien denied that it was an allegory for WWII, but there is no question that the book is about war. Tolkien was a soldier in WWI and *I* feel those experiences are directly reflected in the book. He wrote that his experience gave him, "'a deep sympathy and feeling for the Tommy; especially the plain soldier from the agricultural counties."

 

When they go home in the book Merry and Pippin are the tallest hobbits, ever. They help the hobbits organize and fight against Saruman. They are looked upon with suspicion and a sort of taint due to their adventuring. But, those adventures are what saved the shire, because it could remain untouched forever. But, again, they are looked at with a type of suspicion. Frodo feels it the most deeply (probably because his adventuring seems to be hereditary ;) ). Frodo even says, "We set out to save the Shire, Sam and it has been saved - but not for me. " I think a lot of soldiers feel that way. That they have experienced or touched something most people never do. They are *grateful* that other people don't have to face those things, but they often feel misunderstood and eyed as dangerous or heartless.

 

Just me but I'd rather a reworked version that works as a movie, even if it does change key points, then a scene-by-scene reenactment on screen. I can always go back to the book for that version. I don't wnat exactly the same experience from a movie.

 

The Peter Jackson LOTR movies don't work for me because large chunks of it don't make sense unless you have read the books. Your plot must make sense within the context of the movies. I think LOTR failed there.

[redsquirrel]

I have to admit to being a HUGE Potter fan. A total geek. :tongue_smilie: And I really don't like the movies. I have seen the first, the third and the last. I haven't been impressed. They always feel like they are made by committee. At least the Jackson movies have a vision. You may not share it, but it is there.

 

I think it has to do with if the writing resonates with you. For example, I really, really do NOT like the Tolkien books. Ok, I adored the Hobbit, but gave the trilogy up as a bad job several times. I don't think he is a poor writer by any means. I respect his talent, and I can very much understand why people love the books, they just doesn't appeal to me at all.

 

I loved the movies! It cut out parts that made me nuts (Tom whatshisnose!? what was up with that?) and I finally understood the story. I have watched the movies several time and enjoyed them very much. Well, I did not enjoy the director's cut versions because it felt like it was never going to end. That was over the top.

 

The HP movies always give the plot points but none of the reasons behind anything. And often they change small things that would have added to the story and I can't figure out why they changed it because they saved no time. Often it was a line of dialogue or something in passing. That confuses me and take me out of the experience.

 

I cannot imagine how anyone could ever watch the HP movies, without having read the books, and understand why they inspire such affection. I guess they must be out there. I stand as someone who doesn't really like LoTR books but did enjoy the movies. But, I think Jackson did a much, much better job than all the people who worked on the HP movies.

[jenL]

Nope... I watched the first 2 and was disappointed, so I gave up on them. I have no desire to see them. Maybe when my boys have read the books, I'll watch the movies with them (if they are interested), but I'm not going to seek them out otherwise.

[Slartibartfast]

I have to admit to being a HUGE Potter fan. A total geek. :tongue_smilie: And I really don't like the movies. I have seen the first, the third and the last. I haven't been impressed. They always feel like they are made by committee. At least the Jackson movies have a vision. You may not share it, but it is there.

 

I think it has to do with if the writing resonates with you. For example, I really, really do NOT like the Tolkien books. Ok, I adored the Hobbit, but gave the trilogy up as a bad job several times. I don't think he is a poor writer by any means. I respect his talent, and I can very much understand why people love the books, they just doesn't appeal to me at all.

 

I loved the movies! It cut out parts that made me nuts (Tom whatshisnose!? what was up with that?) and I finally understood the story. I have watched the movies several time and enjoyed them very much. Well, I did not enjoy the director's cut versions because it felt like it was never going to end. That was over the top.

 

The HP movies always give the plot points but none of the reasons behind anything. And often they change small things that would have added to the story and I can't figure out why they changed it because they saved no time. Often it was a line of dialogue or something in passing. That confuses me and take me out of the experience.

 

I cannot imagine how anyone could ever watch the HP movies, without having read the books, and understand why they inspire such affection. I guess they must be out there. I stand as someone who doesn't really like LoTR books but did enjoy the movies. But, I think Jackson did a much, much better job than all the people who worked on the HP movies.

 

 

 

I totally disagree. Jackson did something NONE of the HP directors did. He changed the characters.

[amyk]

Number three is the one I think was done the best; the kids were better actors than in 1&2 (with the exception of Hermione being overly melodramatic, which she does in #4 too) the story made sense, it wasn't so long because they weren't trying to shove in superfluous details.

 

I think I didn't realize how much I hated them until Half Blood Prince. Maybe I should have known, because it was my favorite book. The whole ending scene was so anti-climactic--no battle between DA and Voldemort's people??? Snape and his group just saunter away from Hogwarts??? It was a total letdown, IMHO.

[meggie]

LOL - had the same discussion here. Film #3 still seems the most well done to us as a stand-alone movie. Absolutely would not have made sense had you not read the book. Honestly, I don't understand why you'd go to 8 films without reading the books? I could see the first couple maybe.

 

You would think so, but my sister goes to the movies and hasn't read the books and is ALWAYS asking questions, "Why did they do that? What did that mean?" Arrrrrrgghh! READ:banghead:THE:banghead:BOOK!:banghead:

[redsquirrel]

The Peter Jackson LOTR movies don't work for me because large chunks of it don't make sense unless you have read the books. Your plot must make sense within the context of the movies. I think LOTR failed there.

 

Gotta disagree with you there. I tried several times to read the books and just could not do it. I didn't understand then, I couldn't keep track of who was who, I didn't understand why people were doing whatever it was they were doing. I just didn't get the point of the thing. And when it was over and that stupid 'Sharky' guy who used to be an evil wizard was around..well..OMG, the book just needed to be OVER by then.

 

So, all that said, I liked the movies and they made perfect sense to me. Now, my BIL and SIL saw it and a more muggle-ish sort you never saw. They would never read such books and they didn't watch past the first LoTR movies. They couldn't even understand that.

[meggie]

I think I didn't realize how much I hated them until Half Blood Prince. Maybe I should have known, because it was my favorite book. The whole ending scene was so anti-climactic--no battle between DA and Voldemort's people??? Snape and his group just saunter away from Hogwarts??? It was a total letdown, IMHO.

:iagree: Totally agree. Plus Harry wasn't even frozen in place (sorry, can't think of the name of the curse that made him unable to move). Having him stand there, able to help, but do absolutely nothing takes away from him being a hero. It was so stupid.

[Mrs Mungo]

I loved the movies! It cut out parts that made me nuts (Tom whatshisnose!? what was up with that?) and I finally understood the story.

 

What story did you understand? I don't think you understood Tolkien's story.

 

I felt like Tom Bombadil was important for two reasons:

 

1. In the books the very first thing that happens to the hobbits when they set foot outside the shire is they get eaten by a tree. You think, "oh my gosh, they are in SO much trouble! They can't even handle the TREES! How are they going to handle all the crazy stuff bound to come their way?!"

 

Tom rescues them. He eventually sets them back on their path with a warning to stay away from the barrow downs. They immediately fall into the barrow downs. Again, this is harping on how *not ready* they are for this adventure. These things keep happening. Why? So that by the time they volunteer to go into Mordor and destroy the ring you are thinking, "what? are they INSANE? You guys got eaten by a TREE not that long ago!"

 

2. When he rescues them from the barrow downs he gives them special weapons, this is integral to the killing of the witch king in the third book. It's the only reason Eowyn is able to kill the Nazgul.

 

 

I totally disagree. Jackson did something NONE of the HP directors did. He changed the characters.

 

And major, major plot points are changed. A big example is the nature of the ring. Tom Bombadil, Faramir and others are not tempted by the ring. That's a big difference.

[redsquirrel]

I totally disagree. Jackson did something NONE of the HP directors did. He changed the characters.

 

But that didn't bother me. I couldn't keep track of everyone anyway. I found the movies much more accessible.

 

and I would argue that the HP people did change or leave out characters in many ways. It only matters to me because I care about the characters in the book. I don't have the same emotional attachment to the LoTR characters so I don't feel the loss.

[nukeswife]

I think the HP movies were done fairly well, I'm not a fan of LOTR and found that the movies dragged on and on and on. Now a screenplay that totally missed the mark was (as someone else mentioned) Percy Jackson and the Lightening Thief. They made the characters much older than they should have been, they left out quite a few of the main characters (where they heck was Clarice?) and changed parts of the story line so they just didn't make sense. My son, who was 11 at the time we saw it, and I had a 45 minute discussion on the way home about how badly they'd butchered the story.

Edited July 18, 2011 by nukeswife

[Slartibartfast]

But that didn't bother me. I couldn't keep track of everyone anyway. I found the movies much more accessible.

 

and I would argue that the HP people did change or leave out characters in many ways. It only matters to me because I care about the characters in the book. I don't have the same emotional attachment to the LoTR characters so I don't feel the loss.

 

I am afraid that is more your flaw than the books.

 

Just because you liked a children's book more doesn't mean the slightly more complicated adult book was bad.

[Caitilin]

The problem with those movies, imo, is that they cut too much out of the first two movies. Then, they had so much to cram into the third movie that they couldn't even do it in a way that made sense. It left gaping holes in the plot and huge questions for anyone who had not read the books. My argument has always been the first book should have been split into two movies. I think it would have worked out much better if they had done that.

 

My biggest problem with the whole trilogy is that Peter Jackson *spectacularly* missed the point of the books. That is evidenced by the fact that they cut out the scouring of the shire.

 

Oh, thank goodness! Someone else understands why the movies were so bad. I keep trying to tell people that Tolkien was writing about, among other things, HONOR. Peter Jackson missed the boat, the port, the whole port city on honor. :tongue_smilie:

[Mrs Mungo]

Oh, thank goodness! Someone else understands why the movies were so bad. I keep trying to tell people that Tolkien was writing about, among other things, HONOR. Peter Jackson missed the boat, the port, the whole port city on honor. :tongue_smilie:

 

This is an excellent point too. Duty and honor are important themes in epics. They are demonstrated in different ways by vastly different characters.

[DarcyB]

Or Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief. Now that one, I absolutely HATED. The only thing that was remotely the same as the book was the title, and the character's names.

 

 

 

Totally agree here - COMPLETELY ruined it for our family!

[Skadi]

I've read the firs three HP books. Didn't like them. Everyone told me to just keep reading because "She gets sooooo much better!" Um. If an author can't capture an audience in the span of the first three books, there's a serious problem.

 

I'm also kind of annoyed that HP is basically all that many people read. Nevermind the elementary grade reading level, people said: It will get people reading, period, and then they'll graduate to more sophisticated stuff. Ten years later, I find that if they read anything else at all, it's books like Twilight. I know it makes me a literary pariah to say this, but I'm looking forward to when Harry Potter is one of those crazes that is happily forgotten in the next generation or two.

[WishboneDawn]

The Peter Jackson LOTR movies don't work for me because large chunks of it don't make sense unless you have read the books. Your plot must make sense within the context of the movies. I think LOTR failed there.

 

I'll have to look at it again in that context. I have to admit the whole Arwen subplot threw me off. Didn't care for that.

 

We're also not Elijah Woods fans. My daugther and I cringe at every close up. Half his acting seems to be the result of Peter Jackson yelling, "Okay Elijah, do that look! Perfect! Close up!"

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I've read the firs three HP books. Didn't like them. Everyone told me to just keep reading because "She gets sooooo much better!" Um. If an author can't capture an audience in the span of the first three books, there's a serious problem.

 

I'm also kind of annoyed that HP is basically all that many people read. Nevermind the elementary grade reading level, people said: It will get people reading, period, and then they'll graduate to more sophisticated stuff. Ten years later, I find that if they read anything else at all, it's books like Twilight. I know it makes me a literary pariah to say this, but I'm looking forward to when Harry Potter is one of those crazes that is happily forgotten in the next generation or two.

 

Okay, so, the Harry Potter books may not be categorized as the world's best literature, but for Pete's sake, they're FUN!

[ButterfliesandBooks]

I can only take so much of Emma Watson's "waggling eyebrows" methods of expressing emotion. Watch her eyebrows. Now I've just ruined the movies forever for everybody.

:lol:

 

:iagree:

 

Although they did calm down quite a bit in the later films!

 

I love the HP books so much. I have mixed feelings about the HP movies. The first couple are ok. I hated PoA. Wasn't impressed with GoF or HBP. Thought OoTP was ok. Really quite liked DH part 1, but having just seen part 2 I'm not overly impressed! Although I do have a thing for Alan Rickman :001_wub: ...

 

As for LoTR I have to admit to not being able to stand the books (after trying to read them several times), but loving the films! I'm looking forward to The Hobbit. :)

[WishboneDawn]

Although I do have a thing for Alan Rickman :001_wub: ...

 

 

Doesn't everyone? *happy sigh*

[WishboneDawn]

I've read the firs three HP books. Didn't like them. Everyone told me to just keep reading because "She gets sooooo much better!" Um. If an author can't capture an audience in the span of the first three books, there's a serious problem.

 

I'm also kind of annoyed that HP is basically all that many people read. Nevermind the elementary grade reading level, people said: It will get people reading, period, and then they'll graduate to more sophisticated stuff. Ten years later, I find that if they read anything else at all, it's books like Twilight. I know it makes me a literary pariah to say this, but I'm looking forward to when Harry Potter is one of those crazes that is happily forgotten in the next generation or two.

 

The first three books are written for a younger audience. You're reading books for 10-14 years old. Those books DO capture that audience. The later ones get more sophisticated in style, plot, etc. Not to say you should read them but it wasn't until the later books, probably Goblet of Fire that I really decided I loved the books.

[Mrs Mungo]

Question for those who don't like LOTR: have you read any other epic novels like that? Don Quixote? Les Miserables? The Grapes of Wrath? Hawaii? Dr. Zhivago? Just curious.

[Slartibartfast]

Although I do have a thing for Alan Rickman :001_wub: ...

 

 

 

Doesn't everyone? *happy sigh*

 

:iagree::001_wub::001_wub::001_wub:

[Skadi]

Okay, so, the Harry Potter books may not be categorized as the world's best literature, but for Pete's sake, they're FUN!

 

See, I just don't think they are. I thought they were tedious.

[Skadi]

The first three books are written for a younger audience. You're reading books for 10-14 years old. Those books DO capture that audience. The later ones get more sophisticated in style, plot, etc. Not to say you should read them but it wasn't until the later books, probably Goblet of Fire that I really decided I loved the books.

 

I get that. I read a lot of children's lit, and there are many books written for a young audience I enjoy. I just didn't enjoy these particular children's books, and I don't think it had to do with the age group. I think it had to do with bad writing, cliche characters and recycled mythos.

[Jugglin'5]

What story did you understand? I don't think you understood Tolkien's story.

 

I felt like Tom Bombadil was important for two reasons:

 

1. In the books the very first thing that happens to the hobbits when they set foot outside the shire is they get eaten by a tree. You think, "oh my gosh, they are in SO much trouble! They can't even handle the TREES! How are they going to handle all the crazy stuff bound to come their way?!"

 

Tom rescues them. He eventually sets them back on their path with a warning to stay away from the barrow downs. They immediately fall into the barrow downs. Again, this is harping on how *not ready* they are for this adventure. These things keep happening. Why? So that by the time they volunteer to go into Mordor and destroy the ring you are thinking, "what? are they INSANE? You guys got eaten by a TREE not that long ago!"

 

2. When he rescues them from the barrow downs he gives them special weapons, this is integral to the killing of the witch king in the third book. It's the only reason Eowyn is able to kill the Nazgul.

 

 

 

 

And major, major plot points are changed. A big example is the nature of the ring. Tom Bombadil, Faramir and others are not tempted by the ring. That's a big difference.

 

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! These errors, leaving out the Scouring of The Shire, and the missed duty/honor themes are a reason I grit my teeth every time my kids watch these. They beg me not to run through the litany of my complaints. They know them by heart. :tongue_smilie::D

[Mom22ns]

Well, I'm not going to argue about if the series is wonderful or not. I love the books my ds liked them and dd thinks they are just ok, but has only gotten through two so far.

 

I strongly dislike the movies. I've seen all but the last one. They are ok, but some were hard to follow and all the motivations behind the actions are left out. The relationships are shallow and jumpy. Too many characters that I love in the books are barely mentioned in the movies. For me what makes HP a wonderful read is the relationships. The friendships are deep and abiding and they build throughout the series from childhood friends to adults who take on the world together.

 

I see the same strength in LOTR as well. The fellowship is such a strong bond. Those who are a part are lifelong friends because of it. Overcoming great difference to forge that kind of bond. I think it is a wonderful theme and I relate to it well. That doesn't mean everyone else has to though :).

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

See, I just don't think they are. I thought they were tedious.

 

Madame Bovary, a Russian novel I was forced to read entitled Mother, Jane Eyre, everything I had to read by Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre and Camus (French major)- those I found tedious.

 

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the books. I know plenty of people who did enjoy them who also appreciate literature of all calibers. I have a Master's Degree in French Literature. My best friend has a Master's Degree in Theatre. My husband has a Juris Doctorate. My sister has a PhD in Belgian Literature. We all read things that are "lofty" and "literary". But we all still appreciate Harry Potter for what it is.

[Mrs Mungo]

Madame Bovary, a Russian novel I was forced to read entitled Mother, Jane Eyre, everything I had to read by Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre and Camus (French major)- those I found tedious.

 

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the books. I know plenty of people who did enjoy them who also appreciate literature of all calibers. I have a Master's Degree in French Literature. My best friend has a Master's Degree in Theatre. My husband has a Juris Doctorate. My sister has a PhD in Belgian Literature. We all read things that are "lofty" and "literary". But we all still appreciate Harry Potter for what it is.

 

I like Harry Potter, my degree is in English Lit.

You found Jane Eyre tedious? Shocking! My sisters and I all read that book by sixth or seventh grade. But, my mom loved the Timothy Dalton miniseries version, so...

 

I couldn't make it through Twilight. The dialogue was so insipid. Ugh.

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I like Harry Potter, my degree is in English Lit.

You found Jane Eyre tedious? Shocking! My sisters and I all read that book by sixth or seventh grade. But, my mom loved the Timothy Dalton miniseries version, so...

 

I couldn't make it through Twilight. The dialogue was so insipid. Ugh.

 

I know. I just couldn't make it through Jane Eyre. I've been castigated by all my English lit friends. I finished Twilight, but it was pretty horrible. I didn't even try to read any of the others in that series.

[WishboneDawn]

I get that. I read a lot of children's lit, and there are many books written for a young audience I enjoy. I just didn't enjoy these particular children's books, and I don't think it had to do with the age group. I think it had to do with bad writing, cliche characters and recycled mythos.

 

That's what got to me too. I resisted reading them for a very long time. They got to me eventually though.

 

But I don't think it's any loss not the have liked them.

[WishboneDawn]

I like Harry Potter, my degree is in English Lit.

You found Jane Eyre tedious? Shocking! My sisters and I all read that book by sixth or seventh grade. But, my mom loved the Timothy Dalton miniseries version, so...

 

I couldn't make it through Twilight. The dialogue was so insipid. Ugh.

 

I read all four in a couple of days. It was like binging on cheap Easter Chocolate. Two weeks later I had forgotten most of the major plot points though which is always a poor reflection on the book IMO.

 

I'll never forget Edward's eyes though. They smoldered all the time. Poor Edward, must've hurt.