Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[silverspawn]

Why does everyone hate the second book of Harry Potter? That's like my favorite one.

They do? I think it's fantastic.

[eHalcyon]

What did you find offensive about GoF?

mostly the way the romance was handled. I can't properly explain that, but I thought it was really tasteless. Specifically the scene in the bath with harry and Myrtle was a slap in the face.

Also - there is a lot of yelling in this movie. Like, Dumbledore is yelling 80% of his lines. why? he comes across as an angry little man in this film, rather than as wise and calm like he did in the third one

The bath scene?  What romance was there?  Just Myrtle having a crush on Harry?  I don't remember how it was done in the film, but I thought the books were alright.  Anything that seems off I can brush off as them all being dumb hormonal teenagers.

As for Dumbledore, it's poor direction and/or acting, sure, but offensive?  I mean, I guess you could be like, "this movie is so bad I am offended".

[silverspawn]

What did you find offensive about GoF?

mostly the way the romance was handled. I can't properly explain that, but I thought it was really tasteless. Specifically the scene in the bath with harry and Myrtle was a slap in the face.

Also - there is a lot of yelling in this movie. Like, Dumbledore is yelling 80% of his lines. why? he comes across as an angry little man in this film, rather than as wise and calm like he did in the third one

The bath scene?  What romance was there?  Just Myrtle having a crush on Harry?  I don't remember how it was done in the film, but I thought the books were alright.  Anything that seems off I can brush off as them all being dumb hormonal teenagers.

right, but they are still teenagers in the next two movies, and they handle it just fine. The melodrama in the sixth film was actually quite touching.

What bothered me about the bath scene is that myrtle is virtually molesting harry - physically - unlike in the book.

Another thing was how harry is being disgusted by Hagrid showing interest in Maxime. what an jerk. I mean he has his flaws in the books, but never like this. I think the crux of why I found it offensive is that I felt like it misinterprets characters I kind of liked previously, both in case of Harry, Dumbledore, and tentatively Ron (during the ball).

Oh and, then there was the scene when Harry is trying to get the golden egg without flying, which just makes him an idiot and eats up running for something that's not even in the book.

[eHalcyon]

Well I was speaking of the books specifically.  Again, I don't remember how any it was handled in the films.  Were you offended by the books too?

I can see why Myrtle's behaviour (as you describe) could be offensive.  Still not sure what romance you are talking about.

[silverspawn]

Well I was speaking of the books specifically.  Again, I don't remember how any it was handled in the films.  Were you offended by the books too?

No, the book is fine. It's great, actually.

[Twistedarcher]

[Witherweaver]

I thought the Goblet of Fire movie was just fine, really.

(Confession bear meme.)

I mean I guess I can see Dumbledore being a dick, but hey, he had to have all these thoughts of hunting down horcruxes in the back of his mind at this point, and I'm sure it weighed on his good spirits.

Honestly, I enjoyed the movie. 

[Lekkit]

Am I the only one who dislikes the third book?

I think the first book is pretty neat. Then came the second book that I think is pretty much just boring. Third one have a plot that doesn't appeal to me, and it's really apparent that the main plot of all the books weren't thoroughly thought out. I'm sure there is some explanation as to why there is time travel that can be used to save Buckbeak from getting killed, but nobody else. But they aren't in the books, and the time travel is not really mentioned ever again.

Fourth through seventh books were more coherent and more enjoyable to me when I read them.

[qmech]

Am I the only one who dislikes the third book?

Yes.

[Teproc]

Actually silver, both scenes youtalk about (Myrtle and Harry being disgusted by Hagrid and Maxime) are pretty true to the book...

Teenagers being disgusted by adults having romantic interests is a thing you know. As far as the Myrtle thing, I guess I can see what you're saying, but it's played for laughs so it doesn't bother me.

@Lekkit : Third book was always my favorite, rereading the series recently (on book 6 currently) I was a little disappointed by it, but it still has a special place in my heart. The thing is, it's the only book that doesn't involve Voldemort, and as a kid reading it, a lot of it was just awesome : Harry escaping the Dursleys on his own on the Knight BUs and leaving in the Leaky Cauldron for a while, Remus Lupin being an awesome dude, and I completely shared Harry's excitement about Sirius. Also, time travel is cool. It's also the first one where Hermione becomes ultra-competent and cool, as opposed to the first two where she really is just an annoying know-it-all.

Yeah, it doesn't really make sense that Time Turners can't be used for plenty of other things. But really, the HP books in general don't hold up to a lot of scrutiny, especially on how much Muggles are oblivious to wizards and vice versa really. Mr. Weasley, one of the most knowledgeable people about Muggles in the wizarding Britain, can't even pronounce "telephone" right and is constantly asking very basic stuff about it to Harry ?

What I mean is, the world doesn't really work anyway, so I'm fine with the Time Turner being used only at that point.

Oh, and the second book sucks. I'm not sure why, maybe because Hermione gets knocked off halfway through it, but it was always my least favorite, and it didn't change rereading. Mostly it's that the first two are pretty poorly written, but you can forgive the first one because at least you're discovering the world.

[ashersky]

I also disliked 3, as Sirius was easily my least favorite character/plot device ever.

[silverspawn]

Actually, time turners are mentioned after book 3. In the fifth one, when they break into the ministry, they destroy "the entire ministry's supply of time turners", most likely to have an excuse not to use them later. Of course, they're still a massive plot hole, but to be fair, it's very hard to include time travel without creating plot holes.

Generally, I feel like Rowling started to take things more seriously from the forth book on. Most of the elements that don't make a lot of sense (like the 3-coin currency, time travel, the broken point system in school, and most of all quidditch) are remnants of the first three books, and after that she just had to utilize them as best as she could. I'd also say she does a fantastic job with that, for the most part.

Harry being disgusted by Hagrid (...) are pretty true to the book

uh... ... really? I would say that you're wrong, but I'm not entirely sure. It's a while ago that I listened to the fourth book, but I don't remember that at all.

[pacovf]

The three coin currency is considerably simpler than what the British used to have...

It's a while ago that I listened to the fourth book

Doesn't listening to the books take way longer than reading them?

[LastFootnote]

Doesn't listening to the books take way longer than reading them?

Depends on how fast you read.

[silverspawn]

The three coin currency is considerably simpler than what the British used to have...

It's a while ago that I listened to the fourth book

Doesn't listening to the books take way longer than reading them?

oh, it does. I think the fourth is about 24 hours as an audio book. But you can do stuff while listening.

when I was younger, my sister and me used to listen to harry potter all the time. we had the first 4 books on cassette, and bought 5-7 on cd once they came out. now... well, no-one has cassette players anymore, so I just have 5-7 and 3

I would never actually read any of the early books...

[Witherweaver]

The three coin currency is considerably simpler than what the British used to have...

NOTE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND AMERICANS: One Shilling = Five Pee. It helps to understand the antique finances of the Wichfinder Army if you know the original British monetary system:
Two farthings = One Ha'penny. Two ha'pennies = One Penny. Three pennies = A Thrupenny Bit. Two Thrupences = A Sixpence. Two Sixpences = One Shilling, or Bob. Two Bob = A Florin. One Florin and One Sixpence = Half a Crown. Four Half Crowns = Ten Bob Note. Two Ten Bob Notes = One Pound (or 240 pennies). One Pound and One Shilling = One Guinea.
The British resisted decimalized currency for a long time because they thought it was too complicated.

[Kirian]

The three coin currency is considerably simpler than what the British used to have...

NOTE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND AMERICANS: One Shilling = Five Pee. It helps to understand the antique finances of the Wichfinder Army if you know the original British monetary system:
Two farthings = One Ha'penny. Two ha'pennies = One Penny. Three pennies = A Thrupenny Bit. Two Thrupences = A Sixpence. Two Sixpences = One Shilling, or Bob. Two Bob = A Florin. One Florin and One Sixpence = Half a Crown. Four Half Crowns = Ten Bob Note. Two Ten Bob Notes = One Pound (or 240 pennies). One Pound and One Shilling = One Guinea.
The British resisted decimalized currency for a long time because they thought it was too complicated.

I'm rereading that now.

[Witherweaver]

The three coin currency is considerably simpler than what the British used to have...

NOTE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND AMERICANS: One Shilling = Five Pee. It helps to understand the antique finances of the Wichfinder Army if you know the original British monetary system:
Two farthings = One Ha'penny. Two ha'pennies = One Penny. Three pennies = A Thrupenny Bit. Two Thrupences = A Sixpence. Two Sixpences = One Shilling, or Bob. Two Bob = A Florin. One Florin and One Sixpence = Half a Crown. Four Half Crowns = Ten Bob Note. Two Ten Bob Notes = One Pound (or 240 pennies). One Pound and One Shilling = One Guinea.
The British resisted decimalized currency for a long time because they thought it was too complicated.

I'm rereading that now.

Me too.  I just read that passage this morning~

[pacovf]

Farthing = 1/4 penny
Ha'penny = 1/2 penny
Thrupenny Bit = 3 pennies
Sixpence = 6 pennies
Shilling = 12 pennies

Florin = 2 shillings
Half a crown = 2.5 shillings
Ten Bob note = 10 shillings
Pound = 20 shillings
Guinea = 21 shillings (Guineas were used only for jewelry, IIRC)

To be fair, only half the reason this sounds so complicated is because they didn't use a decimal system. The other half is because a lot of the names seem to be completely unrelated to the value of the coin. For comparison:

two georges = one jeff;
two jeffs and a george = one abraham;
two abrahams = one alex

sounds equally confusing, and it uses the decimal system.

[Kirian]

Farthing = 1/4 penny
Ha'penny = 1/2 penny
Thrupenny Bit = 3 pennies
Sixpence = 6 pennies
Shilling = 12 pennies

Florin = 2 shillings
Half a crown = 2.5 shillings
Ten Bob note = 10 shillings
Pound = 20 shillings
Guinea = 21 shillings (Guineas were used only for jewelry, IIRC)

To be fair, only half the reason this sounds so complicated is because they didn't use a decimal system. The other half is because a lot of the names seem to be completely unrelated to the value of the coin. For comparison:

two georges = one jeff;
two jeffs and a george = one abraham;
two abrahams = one alex

sounds equally confusing, and it uses the decimal system.

Sure, but decimalized American coins also don't relate to their values, excepting the quarter.  And multi-pound notes even in pre-decimal Britain were labeled like multi-dollar notes in the US.

[Donald X.]

bit = 12.5 cents
short bit = 10 cents
long bit = 15 cents
2 bits = shave and a haircut
4 bits = an 8 by 12 room

[Ozle]

bit = 12.5 cents
short bit = 10 cents
long bit = 15 cents
2 bits = shave and a haircut
4 bits = an 8 by 12 room

3 and 6 = The cost of everything expensive in Victorian movies

[Donald X.]

0 ha'pennies = gesundheit

[Witherweaver]

0 ha'pennies = gesundheit

Damn you sir.

[pacovf]

Sure, but decimalized American coins also don't relate to their values, excepting the quarter. And multi-pound notes even in pre-decimal Britain were labeled like multi-dollar notes in the US.

I don't know what you are trying to prove.