Printable View
^^ :thumbs_up
great essay drkshadow!
I'm going to try to reply to some of the points raised within, in the next few days when I have a little more free time, mostly on the racism allegory, the complex use of love as a theme, and well the literary techniques such as deus ex machina being necessary due to aesthetic purpose (which I have a mixed view on)...
Tremendous effort Drkshadow.
"Urban Fantasy" is something done by Robert Louis Stevenson and Kafka. Magic Realism is basically "urban fantasy". 1001 Nights is "urban fantasy". The problem of Harry Potter is not what it is as genre, but as literature (or the solution is). However quoted Chesterton did not understand the joke...
With the new movie coming out the other week, the old ones were on television again and I had some time to watch one while I was doing my laundry. I was sort of going in and out throughout the picture; so I didn't get to see the whole thing, but what I saw was ridiculous.
Over the course of about half an hour Harry, Hermione, and some other kid are creeping through the woods following people. Three or so times Hermione looks back. Harry says, "What is it?" and she says "Nothing. I just thought I saw/heard something." Like three freaking times! I'm watching this thinking, "Well, don't investigate! It's not like you live in a land of danger and magical fantasy. You're curious about every other freakin' thing! And it's not like you could just go back ten feet and check a bush."
Then their friend is getting attacked by a werewolf, and Hermione makes a wolf call. Harry says, "Now he's after us," to which Hermione replies "I didn't think of that." At which point I'm like "Really? 'Cause it looks like that was your whole plan!" What else could she have been thinking? I ran this past a friend of mine and he concluded, "Hermione picked a really bad time to practice her wolf impression."
I went away, folded some laundry, came back. People are shooting wands out of each others hands. I went away, came back. The movie ends with the little boy getting a pimped out broom. Now this is hardly, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." "This looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship." or a three man gunfight in a cemetery. I don't think I'm going to watch any of the others.
It's strange, you commented on the better bits of the movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
It gets worse?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I hear the new one is 10x the melodrama, minus the visual effects, and lacks any coherency, or presence of a plot. Lets be honest, sequels suck, and heptalogies are even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I think the fact that movies were made before the books were finished is proof enough of the sort of banking-on-the-in-thing going on within the producer's minds - it's just a shame Alan Rickman's talent is wasted on kids movies, when he could be playing Shakespeare - but I guess he does his job well enough - certainly better than the rest of the lot, especially that freaking Rat-Kid of a hero they call Harry - I guess he looks close enough to the guy on the cover of the original dust jacket, but seriously, who cast that moron - and the Red head, don't even get me started - the girl I guess is good enough to play Hermione - I hear people find her attractive (I don't, though I am of the same age as her, so I guess it is legal, though I'm sure there are forty year old sickos in their basement with their pants down watching the movies, and fast-forwarding to all the "Juicy" bits, Humbert Humbert, giggidy giggidy etc.) But lets be honest - Harry Potter was too damn popular to have ever been considered as being the source material for good cinema - either you stick so close to the mediocre text that everyone pays for it, or you bend it so drastically as to make it presentable, and everybody hates it (though I guess they'd pay anyway).
Though, I am told they put a black kid in that Slytherin house in the new movie - so perhaps they are being progressive - though, given the densely Aryan appearance of that Malfoy kid, it is impossible I would wager to justify how everyone is related in the "Pure Blood" world. Then again, the closest things to Jews in those texts are probably the old world bankers - the Jews, fighting for their rights in the guise of big noséd Goblins, hoarding their treasures, so perhaps not so progressive after all.
Over the course of about half an hour Harry, Hermione, and some other kid are creeping through the woods following people. Three or so times Hermione looks back. Harry says, "What is it?" and she says "Nothing. I just thought I saw/heard something." Like three freaking times! I'm watching this thinking, "Well, don't investigate! It's not like you live in a land of danger and magical fantasy. You're curious about every other freakin' thing! And it's not like you could just go back ten feet and check a bush."
This is from the Prisoner of Azkaban, and Hermone suspects that it is her - she has a time turner? - might be the wrong name - which enables her to go back in time to attend lessons that clash in the school timetable. She is supposed to keep it secret from the other students, and the convention of use says tha you are not suposed to meet yourself, as this will case problems. It makes perfect sense in the context of the book/ film. I thought this was the best book - but it ddn't translate so well to the film. Still good though.
No doubt the man likes to eat.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I think the fact that movies were made before the books were finished is proof enough of the sort of banking-on-the-in-thing going on within the producer's minds - it's just a shame Alan Rickman's talent is wasted on kids movies, when he could be playing Shakespeare - but I guess he does his job well enough - certainly better than the rest of the lot, especially that freaking Rat-Kid of a hero they call Harry - I guess he looks close enough to the guy on the cover of the original dust jacket, but seriously, who cast that moron - and the Red head, don't even get me started - the girl I guess is good enough to play Hermione - I hear people find her attractive (I don't, though I am of the same age as her, so I guess it is legal, though I'm sure there are forty year old sickos in their basement with their pants down watching the movies, and fast-forwarding to all the "Juicy" bits, Humbert Humbert, giggidy giggidy etc.) But lets be honest - Harry Potter was too damn popular to have ever been considered as being the source material for good cinema - either you stick so close to the mediocre text that everyone pays for it, or you bend it so drastically as to make it presentable, and everybody hates it (though I guess they'd pay anyway).
Does the term "winding up" translate across the pond?
Look forward to your additional response.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Doesnt Dumbledore suggest to them the use of the time traveling later when Harry is recovering ?
The whole time-turner bit is ridiculous though - if they can go back in time, why don't they enlist Arnold and send him back to kill Voldemort's mother?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Doesnt Dumbledore suggest to them the use of the time traveling later when Harry is recovering ?
Yes. The implication is that Hermione suspects it s herself, and confims it whilst at Hagrid's house.
The whole time-turner bit is ridiculous though - if they can go back in time, why don't they enlist Arnold and send him back to kill Voldemort's mother?
They're British JBI! It just wouldn't be cricket!
Then she is a bit dumb isnt? She thinks it is her, the only explanation is the time travel, yet she needs Dumbledore to suggest the use of the device to solve their problems? It is, as JBI suggests, a "stuff ex machina", the consequences of it is existence is not well developed, just placed in the book, hence why the characters are able to act a bit odd...Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Not really. The device if I remember correctly takes you back in time by the hour. You want to go back three hours, you need to flip the thing 3 times. You want to go back 24 hours, you need to flip it 24 times. You want to go back 20 years: 20 x 365 x 24 = you'd have to turn the freaking thing 175,200 times!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
If I also remember correctly there is no reversing the process, no returning to the future. To return back to "real time" you have to wait to catch-up to point in the present when you used the device to travel back. So you travel back 20 years, you have to live 20 years in the past before returning to the point in time your originally left.
Putting the inconveniences of the devices aside. As if already predicting your exact criticism of this magical object, Rowling has all of the Ministry's time-turner destroyed prior to them realizing that Voldemort has returned. So as far as they are concerned Voldemort is dead, and there would be no real reason to attempt to send Arnold back and kill him Terminator style. And when they do realize he's truly back and not dead, well, they no longer have the damn things.
Cranking something that many times if you are a wizard and can crank by magic? OR better yet, why didn't they crank it years and years before? but it makes no sense - they don't even treat the paradox - think of it as mediocre imaginings - they have a time macine, but don't use it - I'm sure Arnold wouldn't object anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Sounds more like weak criticism than mediocre imaginings, for the reasons I already stated one post above yours, especially the second point which you conveniently didn't address; the fact that the spell that murders in the Magic World is illegal, so why it would be legal to murder an innocent boy prior to his committing any crime by time-traveling is beyond me (also undercutting that whole theme of moral choice that I mentioned); when only Dumbledore seems to know Voldemort's previous identity as Tom Riddle, and he doesn't seem like the murdering type; and how the time travel motif to kill Hitler or John Connor or whomever would equate to superior imaginings by copying the direction of every other single time travel story is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Then she is a bit dumb isnt? She thinks it is her, the only explanation is the time travel, yet she needs Dumbledore to suggest the use of the device to solve their problems? It is, as JBI suggests, a "stuff ex machina", the consequences of it is existence is not well developed, just placed in the book, hence why the characters are able to act a bit odd...
No mate. She has to go through events to realise why she has to go back in time. Why are you bothering to try to criticise when you clearly don't know the story? Why am I bothering with this thread? Drkshadow is clearly answering you, Mortalterror and JBI's criticisms with reasoned answers based upon the text and films. Drkshadow's done a really good job against puerile objectons. Well done Drkshadow. More than a match.
Eh, who said I do not know the story?
Mortal Claims the behaviour of Harry and Hermonine in the movie is strange, since she dismiss something in a magical wood quite quickly while they are usually curious.
You claim he thought it was herself, so she just avoided the meeting, since it was forbidden.
Then I just asked about Dumbledore having to suggest the use the time travel device, so: either Hermonie had no idea about being herself, otherwise she would already know that she would use the time travel or or, if she knew, she would be rather dumb to not consider the use of something she just saw in pratice.
Of course,Mortal is talking about the movie, so you saying that in the book it made sense is a bit irrelevant, a movie is a work on his own, if the movie fails to fullfil his information, it is not good (altough I remember the movie actually explains the impossiblity of meeting). Which just means: the behaviour of Hermonie was badly portraied because the idea of time travel was far from being well used, as it is a plot device, just scattered in the narrative. Rather typical in Harry Potter.
I wonder how this equate not knowing the works or how answering "It happens because it is how it happens in the book" style of answer is anything to be praised.
What's the point of setting someone up with a question if you do know the book/ film? I still think your criticisms ae rubbish. The film works, the books work. It is a narrative technique that allows the story to be played out according to Rowling's plan for the story. You seem to think that a personality flaw in a charater makes it a bad piece. Aren't character flaws part and parcel of fiction?
Rambo IV works too. And it is not a character flaw, it is a narrative flaw, but hey, the movie Works!
I was merely joking with that - but think of it this way - they could have gone back and given his mother a box of condoms - the possibilities are endless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I don't really understand the debate, the time-turners are all destroyed by the time Voldermort comes back. Dumbledore tells Hermione to use time travel as a way of "giving her permission to use it". Hermione had kept it a secret in order to keep a promise that she had made to her Professor not to tell anyone of it (Since they are to be used only by the ministry). Dumbledore mentions that she use it in a way of allowing her permission, as well as conveniently spoiling a secret of Hermione's.
EDIT: now to speak for Science fiction. I do not think it is possible for anyone to go back that far. This is not because the time-turner does not allow it to be done, but because as people have eluded to, a person traveling through time has to go through the events up until the present without being seen. The reason they cannot be seen is evident in that if they were to be seen it would destroy the fabric of time. Unlike Terminator or a typical time-traveling device, there is no way to go back to the present, it has to be "re-lived". It seems plausible that the reason the ministry does now allow them to be used, and keeps them tightly secured in the ministry, is because of such things. Had the professor, or dumbledore, or hermione been caught using the time time-turners, they surely would've been arrested on-spot.
Rambo IV works too. And it is not a character flaw, it is a narrative flaw, but hey, the movie Works!
You'e comparing HP with Rambo? What you are basically saying is that all the people who apprecate HP for what it is - a kid's adventure that can be enjoyed by adults too - are idiots, unlike yourseif of course. How can they not see its flaws? Probably because it has more going for it than the sum total of flaws it undoubtedly has.
either Hermonie had no idea about being herself, otherwise she would already know that she would use the time travel or or, if she knew, she would be rather dumb to not consider the use of something she just saw in pratice.
I already suggested that she suspected = charater flaw. I just can't see the problem with this. I've seen the film a few times - my kids watch it - and there is absolutely no problem with the flow of it. It is plausible and it works.
Hypothetically though, if we are to understand the time travel, Hermione would be aging at a much faster rate than her friends - every time she exists in the same time sphere in two bodies, she is aging twice as faster, keep in mind, so in the end, she should appear at least 1/3 of a year older - some teachers, letting her do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
I don't really understand the debate, the time-turners are all destroyed by the time Voldermort comes back. Dumbledore tells Hermione to use time travel as a way of "giving her permission to use it". Hermione had kept it a secret in order to keep a promise that she had made to her Professor not to tell anyone of it (Since they are to be used only by the ministry). Dumbledore mentions that she use it in a way of allowing her permission, as well as conveniently spoiling a secret of Hermione's.
Thanks Mathor - that's cleared it up for me. It's quite a few years since I read the book.
So Rambo IV does. Wait, why you can not compare Harry Potter III with Rambo IV, it is sacred?
I am calling everyone idiots, after all it is written, isnt?
If you can not understand that using a character that is either smart, resourceful and curious to be nothing at all just to avoid plot detours is a flaw of narrative, not of the character.
Hehe, I am not even going to move about the quality of the movie. Kids also watch Hannah Barbera Cartoons, they should replace Shakespeare in our schools...
Hypothetically though, if we are to understand the time travel, Hermione would be aging at a much faster rate than her friends - every time she exists in the same time sphere in two bodies, she is aging twice as faster, keep in mind, so in the end, she should appear at least 1/3 of a year older - some teachers, letting her do that.
You could write a book JBI - A brief history of Harry Potter by JK Hawking
So Rambo IV does. Wait, why you can not compare Harry Potter III with Rambo IV, it is sacred?
I am calling everyone idiots, after all it is written, isnt?
If you can not understand that using a character that is either smart, resourceful and curious to be nothing at all just to avoid plot detours is a flaw of narrative, not of the character.
Hehe, I am not even going to move about the quality of the movie. Kids also watch Hannah Barbera Cartoons, they should replace Shakespeare in our schools...
I think Mathor's post clears it up. Rambo? Yes you can compare Rambo iv if you like, but I can't see the relevance. Now there is a film full of cliche and rubbish characterisaton. I presume you thought to compare it in terms of quality. How did you know it was inmy top ten films to turn off the tv for?
No, Mathor only says what happens in the book. It do not say anything about Hermonie not conecting her time-clone presence in the scene with the fact that she had to solve the problems (or help harry to solve) using the device. You are obviously mistaking: I am countering your argument to answer Mortal, not the book.
And You again misunderstand. I am using Rambo IV because it is a crap movie. Not because I am suggesting you like it, In fact I expect you dislike it a lot. But Rambo IV is full of Cliches ? Surprise, so is Harry Potter. Rubbish Characterisation? So is Harry Potter. (Granted, Rambo is worst) but basically: Rambo has flow, logic between scenes because telling a basic plot is simple. Not a great feat. Kids do it all the time. Players of Dungeons and Dragons do it all the time (and they often improvise). It works? Yeah, it is a basic thing, not something special. We would not be here criticising it (for good or bad or ugly) if I did not the basic. We all accept it. Defenses of HP in the basis that "it works" is just, what have you said? Rubbish criticism? Lets demmand a little more to receive the praise,right?
I am not speaking of the book, I am speaking of the movie. Just because you did not understand the plot of the movie does not make what I said untrue. Hermione sees herself walking, but feels it's best not to mention it. It's not as if she didn't know what it was, she sees herself and Harry walking, but she also knows she has a time-travel device and has already deduced the probability that she'd end up using it at some point.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
i KNOW the movie is good because I trust the work of Alfonso Cuaron, a master director. As contrite as the Harry Potter novels can be (and most of the movies), the third movie is a gem of cinema.
Glad you're enjoying the fun. However, I want to correct you. I've only really addressed JBI's criticisms (and he was jesting). I haven't responded to Mortalterror's complaints about the movie, nor any of Jcamillo's so-called "points."Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Oh, I completely agree. His analysis and familiarity with the text is far in excess of my own. I would not dare to refute his contentions on my own, and so I have not attempted to critique anything he says but merely confined my remarks to my own anecdotal experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
No real time elapses when she's time travelling, so she won't age any faster. For instance, when Dumbledore sends her and Harry three hours back in time to rescue Sirius, he announces that it's five minutes to midnight. And it's still five minutes to midnight when they get back, even though they've been travelling in the past for three hours. I assume that only real time counts for aging, not revisited time.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Edit: Perhaps when she turns the timeturner to go back in time three hours, she becomes three hours younger, and then ages at the normal pace until she reaches the age she started out with at the end of the three hours. Well, why not? :p
yep - how typical of jk rowling to get the physics of time travel wrong..Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
now lets all get really angry and pummel our keyboards :flare:
WHY? JK? WHY CAN'T YOU MAKE SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS TIME TRAVEL REALISTIC? I MEAN SHE WOULD BE 1/3 OLDER.. 1 WHOLE 3RD I TELLS YOU! IT'S FLAWED! THE WHOLE NOVEL IS FLAWED!
What is there to not understand? Let me say again, I am not saying anything different from the scenes your or anyone else is descripting (and yeah, I wrote book in a harshness, but It is not necessary to edit the posts, since it is already done, right?), just pointing the explanation that Hermonie does not investigate what she saw because she knows about her timetravel clone is far fetched. In the movie she does not say it at all. And it is Dumbledore and not Hermnonie that suggests the use of time traveling device - if she already knew about it she would not first urge Dumbledore to change things and that the trio could testify. It was necessary Dumbledore to give tips for her to consider the use (and even when and where she should go, something that should be obvious if she saw herself).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
This implies that either Mortal is right about the sunden lack of curiosity of the trio (by the way, it is not Hermonie that moves them away from the pumpkin field, so it was not a decision taken by her reasoning either) or that Hermonie (if saw herself) is a bit... slow. You can pick which one.
Of course, JK Rowling had no blame here. The book is slightly different, isnt?
But hey, if you think Harry Potter is a prroduct of a master and reflects it, there is very little I can do except talk about a time when a Master director was Stanley Kubrick and a master film was Clockwork Orange... But maybe I am a dimwit like Harold Bloom.
Now I would come back to read Chesterton, someone should.
I'm not going to comment about this whole debate, but I just want to say my opinion on the aging while using the time-turner. Hermione only used the time-turner for almost a year, and she didn't use it all the time, she only re-lived a couple of hours each day. So okay, in the end she has aged a bit faster than her fellow students, but really, can you honestly say you could see the difference? "Hermione, you look two whole months older than you should be! :eek:"
:D
lol @ the rambo comparison! ;) I'm kinda split on HP - it doesn't hold any huge significant appeal to me, but I appreciate it for turning younger people onto books again. I mean not just Rowling's books, but even other's outside of that scope. Found an article on Infloox that basically explains how Rowling used a scene from "The Iliad" by Homer (yeah seriously!) as the basis for Cedric's death in Goblet of Fire. Maybe once kids know about stuff like that, it would turn them onto other books and authors as well. I think I just went off on a total tangent here :)