Poll
Question:
Same thing as the subject.
Option 1: The Movies
votes: 5
Option 2: The Books
votes: 30
Option 3: They Both Suck
votes: 5
I personally hate them both but it's fun to see what people think. ;)
That's a joke right.
well the books do have Mrs. Weasly ::)
NOT MY DAUTER YOU BITCH
Didn't the movies kill the entire series because of their crapiness (besides the first one)? :-\
yea the books are alot better than the movies....
the books by far... the movies miss too much of the story, and the kid/teen actors sometimes seem like they're lost...
the only thing that i considered better in the movies than in the books was the quittich (or however you spell it)... but even then...
Quote from: Composer #40 on July 14, 2008, 09:13:57 AMDidn't the movies kill the entire series because of their crapiness (besides the first one)? :-\
the answer to that is yes
never judge a book by its movie
all i gots to say
Quote from: BlueFlameDude on July 19, 2008, 08:23:21 PMnever judge a book by its movie
all i gots to say
well, i agree.
my favorite harry potter movies go like this:
the sorcerers stone
the chamber of secrets
all the other movies are complete crap
I think the books are better, but I enjoy the movies too. ^_^;
The movies were total crap (cept for the first one, i still watch it, but they all sucked after that) by far the books were better and J.K. was stupid to say the Dumbledore was gay, there was no insinuation towards that at any point in time. In fact, i thought him and Mcgonagle had something going on!
what pissed me off when J.K. said that dumbledore was gay, was that it actually bothered people. when you read a book, its supposed to be your interpretation of the book. if somebody tells you something about that book, it doesnt have to be true or false
I heard a 18 Year old Kid in London killed himself when
SPOILER ALERT IF YOU HAVEN'T READ 6&7
SERIOUSLY, IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THEM YET, DON'T LOOK DOWN HERE
Okay, if you are here then you probably have read 6&7. Huh? You haven't? That means several more hours of holding down Enter!
jk.
Okay so he killed himself when he finished the 6th book and found out that dumbledore dies. I was like
"what an idiot!"
wtf- dis that kid have a life???
if he did, it probably wouldnt have matterd as much that dumbledore died
It's prtty dumb that J.K. Rowling announced Dumbledore was gay though.
Quote from: PseudoMario16 on July 25, 2008, 08:41:53 PMwhat pissed me off when J.K. said that dumbledore was gay, was that it actually bothered people. when you read a book, its supposed to be your interpretation of the book. if somebody tells you something about that book, it doesnt have to be true or false
does any body lidten to me??? well, to find my view of her saying dumblegore was gay is there (looks up)
Remember this? "out of sight, out of mind?" J.K.'s act gave us something to talk about after the 7th book came out. Many non-Potter fans were happy to see it gone(no more of "read this book! IT'S NEW!!!!")
With Dumbledore being gay, Harry Potter was kept in our minds. Fans reread the books for evidence to this bizarre "fact." Non-Potter fans had to endure more talk about Harry Potter. more people bought the book because of her act (which means more $).
No, I am not a non-Potter fan. I love the series.
Dumbledore is not gay.
This was all just my opinion.
Quote from: Brawler4Ever on July 29, 2008, 06:15:26 AMRemember this? "out of sight, out of mind?" J.K.'s act gave us something to talk about after the 7th book came out. Many non-Potter fans were happy to see it gone(no more of "read this book! IT'S NEW!!!!")
With Dumbledore being gay, Harry Potter was kept in our minds. Fans reread the books for evidence to this bizarre "fact." Non-Potter fans had to endure more talk about Harry Potter. more people bought the book because of her act (which means more $).
No, I am not a non-Potter fan. I love the series.
Dumbledore is not gay.
This was all just my opinion.
You know I didn't even realize that, but I bet that you're right.
Wait she actually said he was gay?
You don't watch the news, do you? It was all over the news when she announced it.
lol NOBODY thinks the movies are better- oh, and check out these things i found out about harry potter movies-
the first movie was originally 6HOURS LONG!!! obviously too long, so they shortened it by about half.
the first movie is the longest movie, but the shortest book
and vice versa with the fifth movie- its the longest book, but the shortest movie
I think it's ridiculous the news made a big deal about J.K. Rowling's announcement that Dumbledore was gay. Good readers have to know more then vocabulary and have the ability to recongnize symbolism and theme. They have to interpret the book themselves and individually from everyone else , that's what good readers do, without the author budding in. If Dumbledore was gay it would have been well known throughout the text of the book. There is no evidence that he was gay and it's not a vital piece of information that changes the story. If J.K Rowling wanted to make it a big deal it would have been stated clearly in her series. So I think it's madness.
And for the record...I've never seen the movies.
Quote from: random_goldfish on July 30, 2008, 09:50:48 PMI think it's ridiculous the news made a big deal about J.K. Rowling's announcement that Dumbledore was gay. Good readers have to know more then vocabulary and have the ability to recongnize symbolism and theme. They have to interpret the book themselves and individually from everyone else , that's what good readers do, without the author budding in. If Dumbledore was gay it would have been well known throughout the text of the book. There is no evidence that he was gay and it's not a vital piece of information that changes the story. If J.K Rowling wanted to make it a big deal it would have been stated clearly in her series. So I think it's madness.
And for the record...I've never seen the movies.
if u enjoy the books, u shouldnt see the movies
I NEVER see movies based on books. I'm such a hardcore reader that I don't want to take my chances. My sister managed to drag me to see Eragon and I couldn't get my brain to stop bleeding.
Quote from: random_goldfish on July 30, 2008, 10:01:46 PMI NEVER see movies based on books. I'm such a hardcore reader that I don't want to take my chances. My sister managed to drag me to see Eragon and I couldn't get my brain to stop bleeding.
Eragon was stupid..except the music. It had a cool soundtrack.
Quote from: PseudoMario16 on July 30, 2008, 09:37:25 PMlol NOBODY thinks the movies are better- oh, and check out these things i found out about harry potter movies-
the first movie was originally 6HOURS LONG!!! obviously too long, so they shortened it by about half.
the first movie is the longest movie, but the shortest book
and vice versa with the fifth movie- its the longest book, but the shortest movie
They're learning. :P
Quote from: random_goldfish on July 30, 2008, 10:01:46 PMI NEVER see movies based on books. I'm such a hardcore reader that I don't want to take my chances. My sister managed to drag me to see Eragon and I couldn't get my brain to stop bleeding.
Super Spoiler Warning!
Just skip through this message as fast as you can if you don't want any Eragon spoilers.
Holy shit that movie was screwed up! The Razac die in the first movie though not in the first book. THEY ARE HUGE CHARACTERS IN THE SECOND BOOK AND THEY ARE STILL NOT DEAD! Brom gets killed by the Razac, not Durza. Roran goes away to become a blacksmith apprentice not because he can be recruited.( By the way, these are all comparisons between the movie and book.) They forgot to put the giant Ruby in Tronjheim in the movie.They never even went to Teirm in the movie which took up a good portion of the book! The books were great the movie sucked balls.
Ummm... Spoiler warning /\
;)
Forgot to put it in there. I just assumed everyone read it. ::)
Yeah, the movie of Eragon was probably the worst Movie-Book comparison ever. I truly hated it. I also loved how they never even went into the desert in the movie but it was like 5 chapters in the book. (btw, i dont remember the names of the places) but they also didn't put in the place with the extremely harsh winds that like ripped Saphira's wings. Its all just totally off.
sell, i didnt read eragon, but i definatly hated the movie, soooo....
you would love the books, btw, Brisngir This Fall!
ive heard they're going to remake the first 3 harry potter movies cuz apparently they sucked.......i think they were all right, i mean what do u want for that time?
Personally, the Potter movies truly did suck, and i think that they would suck even more if they remade them and no one would watch them because they would need a new kid, and Daniel Radcliff is obviously too old to play a 12-year old or however old he's supposed to be.
ya, they should just leave em
Quote from: Gooch on August 02, 2008, 08:45:18 AMPersonally, the Potter movies truly did suck, and i think that they would suck even more if they remade them and no one would watch them because they would need a new kid, and Daniel Radcliff is obviously too old to play a 12-year old or however old he's supposed to be.
actually, daniel radcliff is um, 20.... i think... im not sure, its just what i heard
Quote from: Gooch on August 01, 2008, 07:37:59 PM(btw, i dont remember the names of the places) but they also didn't put in the place with the extremely harsh winds that like ripped Saphira's wings. Its all just totally off.
I'm almost positive that was after they bought the horses and went out the forest to te plains. But I could be wrong. ::)
Quote from: PseudoMario16 on August 02, 2008, 10:26:14 AMQuote from: Gooch on August 02, 2008, 08:45:18 AMPersonally, the Potter movies truly did suck, and i think that they would suck even more if they remade them and no one would watch them because they would need a new kid, and Daniel Radcliff is obviously too old to play a 12-year old or however old he's supposed to be.
actually, daniel radcliff is um, 20.... i think... im not sure, its just what i heard
I wasn't talking about Daniel Radcliff, i was talking about Harry Potter being 12 in the first movie/book, otherwise it would be illegal for Danny-Boy to be doin the stuff hes doin *cough* naked pictures *cough*
*cough* nude plays*cough*
Quote from: PseudoMario16 on August 02, 2008, 10:26:14 AMQuote from: Gooch on August 02, 2008, 08:45:18 AMPersonally, the Potter movies truly did suck, and i think that they would suck even more if they remade them and no one would watch them because they would need a new kid, and Daniel Radcliff is obviously too old to play a 12-year old or however old he's supposed to be.
actually, daniel radcliff is um, 20.... i think... im not sure, its just what i heard
*coughcough*lotsofmake-up*coughcough*
They're budget's gotta be dangerously low now. :P
100 million dollars spent on Radcliff's make- up. 1 quarter on the quality of the actual film.
It'd work out somehow. ::)
I hear J.K. Rowling making a new book called Harry Potter and The Giant Mountain of Money.
are they seriously remaking the first 3 movies cuz they sucked??? thats gotta be a slap in the face for the people who worked on those movies...
anyway
Quote from: SuperFireKirby on August 02, 2008, 03:53:21 PM100 million dollars spent on Radcliff's make- up. 1 quarter on the quality of the actual film.
thats insane....
15 votes for the books. 0 for the movies(as of now, anyway).
I find that funny.
Quote from: Brawler4Ever on August 06, 2008, 09:04:55 PM15 votes for the books. 0 for the movies(as of now, anyway).
I find that funny.
lol yeah. it makes sense though
They should ditch the movies all together, they're atrocious
The last book seemed rushed and I dont like how it ended - but that's just me
Quote from: Jedesyus on August 11, 2008, 12:24:50 AMThey should ditch the movies all together, they're atrocious
The last book seemed rushed and I dont like how it ended - but that's just me
well, maybe it was kinda rushed, but it was still really good- and i dont like how it ended either
At least one of the main characters should have died!! lol
Thats how all good books have to end. If they don't then someone can revive the character some twenty years later.
ok, who the hell said the movies were better- they should DIE!!!!!
Wow they actually has a vote now. :P
When I read the books, (well mainly the first) there was a feeling of fun and whimsy of another world of magic. It wasn't this latin-voodoo-hexing or genie-nose-twitching, but a fun new world of talking objects, owls and stuff. I feel like the movies sucked the brilliant fun out of the books to try and make it seem grander and more epic... when it just goes against my interests...
I guess everybody's entitled to their own opinion though!
I think if a magic world exists its probably far from being fun and whimsical.
Depends on who you're asking...
The Joker+magical powers=fun and whimsical(for him, anyway).
;D
A very good point indeed.
Quote from: HungryDragon on July 14, 2008, 08:49:09 AMwell the books do have Mrs. Weasly ::)
NOT MY DAUTER YOU BITCH
LOL. Mrs. Weasley PWN'T that scene. xDDD
I like the books better :3
Now the movies have 2 votes! It's amazing.
i said books cause the movies simply suck. ;D
WTF- WHO VOTED FOR THE MOVIES- THE MOVIES SUCK COCK
You already made your point Pseudo
Quote from: PseudoMario16 on September 14, 2008, 07:38:47 PMWTF- WHO VOTED FOR THE MOVIES- I BELIVE THAT THE MOVIES SUCK COCK
That's more politically correct.
As Dude pointed out, only Kirby sucks on this forum.
If anyone here needs a new book to read, I recommend Ender's Game. There's like eight books in the series. Only for the experienced reader.
Quote from: Brawler4Ever on September 15, 2008, 03:55:34 PMQuote from: PseudoMario16 on September 14, 2008, 07:38:47 PMWTF- WHO VOTED FOR THE MOVIES- I BELIVE THAT THE MOVIES SUCK COCK
That's more politically correct.
As Dude pointed out, only Kirby sucks on this forum.
And PianoMas- *SMACK*
Quote from: SuperFireKirby on September 17, 2008, 12:23:54 PMIf anyone here needs a new book to read, I recommend Ender's Game. There's like eight books in the series. Only for the experienced reader.
There's 4 books in the Ender's Game Quartet.
Aaaand there's 4 books in the Ender's Shadow Quartet.
Speaker for the Dead and up is for philosophical and science people.
Shadow of the Hegemon and up is for people who are interested in World War 3. ;)
Ender's Game and
Ender's Shadow go hand-in-hand for just about everybody who doesn't mind swearing.
I like all eight books :P
^^Of course, this isn't set in stone. I'm not philosphical OR scientific and I still like
Speaker for the Dead and up.
Quote from: Brawler4Ever on September 15, 2008, 03:55:34 PMQuote from: PseudoMario16 on September 14, 2008, 07:38:47 PMWTF- WHO VOTED FOR THE MOVIES- I BELIVE THAT THE MOVIES SUCK COCK
That's more politically correct.
As Dude pointed out, only Kirby sucks on this forum.
haha that took me a while to get =P. good one =D
Quote from: Brawler4Ever on September 17, 2008, 04:35:10 PMQuote from: SuperFireKirby on September 17, 2008, 12:23:54 PMIf anyone here needs a new book to read, I recommend Ender's Game. There's like eight books in the series. Only for the experienced reader.
There's 4 books in the Ender's Game Quartet.
Aaaand there's 4 books in the Ender's Shadow Quartet.
Speaker for the Dead and up is for philosophical and science people.
Shadow of the Hegemon and up is for people who are interested in World War 3. ;)
Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow go hand-in-hand for just about everybody who doesn't mind swearing.
I like all eight books :P
^^Of course, this isn't set in stone. I'm not philosphical OR scientific and I still like Speaker for the Dead and up.
Ender's Game is way better than Harry Potter. Anyone read the new one yet? I think the books are good, but the movies just suck.
New what? New Ender's Game book? Or new Harry Potter book?