16 replies to this topic

[Doc]

Fantastic film. Stands up as both a movie and an adaptation from the book.

[birtelcom]

Fantastic film. Stands up as both a movie and an adaptation from the book.

Especially from the point at which Harry shares Snape's memories and from there on -- I had forgotten just how moving these sections were in the book, and the movie recaptures a lot of that. The movies have not always been successful in capturing the richness of the Potter books, indeed there is no way they really could. It's hard for me to imagine someone unfamiliar with the books really getting a lot of what zips by very quickly on film. But this one is quite successful in communicating the human drama of the final installment of the epic.

One thing that struck me here, as it did in watching the Lord of the Rings movies, is how profoundly the European wars of 1914-1945 continue to influence the British popular imagination and how resonant British expressions of that experience in fantasy form can be for Americans despite having had a very different experience of the 20th century.

[BelieveinNYM]

I think of all the movies, both parts of the 7th were the most faithful. I was so curious about how they would handle Snape's memories, and I must say, it was very gripping. Even the part when he was dying and giving the memories to Harry...wow. You could see the years of conflicting feelings all hashed out in one moment. Great ending to a great franchise.

[Bruce Wayne]

From beginning to the end, this movie had my undivided attention. I was sad to see it end, yet I was filled wit such a sense of comfort when the film ended as it did.

[ZachTavlin]

I was sad to see it end...

Nonsense. The best thing about this movie is that it's the last. Time for art and the imagination to reassert itself.

[gak29]

Nonsense. The best thing about this movie is that it's the last. Time for art and the imagination to reassert itself.

Can you see with your nose turned up so high?

[ZachTavlin]

Can you see with your nose turned up so high?

Everyone has negative opinions about certain things. Sadly, for many adults that doesn't include children's literature. Of course, I will concede that the films are moderately more interesting than the books (nowhere to go but up, you know?).

[gak29]

Everyone has negative opinions about certain things. Sadly, for many adults that doesn't include children's literature. Of course, I will concede that the films are moderately more interesting than the books (nowhere to go but up, you know?).

Whatever you say, Stan.

[ZachTavlin]

Whatever you say, Stan.

I'm not sure why this is about me right now. You couldn't relate this thread to your own life, as you're usually so good at doing?

No, I don't like Harry Potter, although it's the books I dislike primarily. It's a minority position to be certain, though I'm not the only one.

And the same way The Merchant of Venice, itself a formidable comedy, probably did more harm than good historically (to Jews in particular), so the South Park episode you're referencing will hinder our generation's intellect (at least until it's largely forgotten by next season) as long as it suggests to us that life-denying cynicism has anything to do with an engaged, critical disposition.

[gak29]

I'm not sure why this is about me right now. You couldn't relate this thread to your own life, as you're usually so good at doing?

No, I don't like Harry Potter, although it's the books I dislike primarily. It's a minority position to be certain, though I'm not the only one.

And the same way The Merchant of Venice, itself a formidable comedy, probably did more harm than good historically (to Jews in particular), so the South Park episode you're referencing will hinder our generation's intellect (at least until it's largely forgotten by next season) as long as it suggests to us that life-denying cynicism has anything to do with an engaged, critical disposition.

I just feel that you are too quick to attach any meaning behind the reasons to dislike something. Like saying Mumford and Sons is predictable or whatever reasons you don't like Harry Potter are probably valid reasons, but they do not commit one to not liking them. (Very Kierkegaardian of me, I know, but I don't mind that.) But saying something like, "The best thing about this movie is that it's the last. Time for art and the imagination to reassert itself," seems to imply that, yeah, those reasons do commit one to whatever opinion. That's not how it works, though.

You want me to make it about me? Saying an artwork does "harm" is incoherent to me. Can one have an unfavorable opinion about it? Sure. But I truly believe it is a mistake to place blame on an artwork for existing. I will rant forever on how terrible I thought Bridesmaids and Transformers 3 were. But, to say that those should not have been made (in a way) is just dumb. Why would one be motivated to have such an opinion?

In fact, my anger from those two movies I mentioned stems from the idea that I thought they were redeemable. That implies, "Yes, those movies should have been made." I can only fault someone making something for not trying hard enough. I don't think that's the case in Harry Potter, and I really don't think that's the case for Mumford and Sons. I do think that was the case for Transformers and Bridesmaids (freaking Kristen Wiig, no killer instinct). It just seems that sometimes, you want to fault artists for more than that, for other standards, and I don't get where that comes from. At all.

Especially when it comes to simple and decadent stuff, like what Harry Potter is supposed to be. As long as the artist in question is actually inspired by his or her creating, then "having fun" is a sufficient reason to like something. Rowling doesn't seem to me as someone who just slapped something together and expects people to like it, making her money. I think she actually cares about it. It doesn't mean that it was not going to be bad. If it was, though, I wouldn't pay any attention to it to form a meaningful opinion, and continue to acknowledge and respect its existence. Not saying that anything else is "unfair," but instead incoherent.

[ZachTavlin]

I just feel that you are too quick to attach any meaning behind the reasons to dislike something. Like saying Mumford and Sons is predictable or whatever reasons you don't like Harry Potter are probably valid reasons, but they do not commit one to not liking them. (Very Kierkegaardian of me, I know, but I don't mind that.) But saying something like, "The best thing about this movie is that it's the last. Time for art and the imagination to reassert itself," seems to imply that, yeah, those reasons do commit one to whatever opinion. That's not how it works, though.

To no one in particular: I'm not strong enough (or perhaps I'm too bored not to) to resist responding here, so I apologize to everyone else here. I do think it's selfish of both gak and I to bicker about ourselves like this, but you can't go mammary gland for tat with this kid without being a prick, evidently. I'm sorry.

It's great that two arguments have melded into one in the space 'beyond' or 'between' threads...why don't you just start a thread titled 'Reasons Why Zach Is A Jerk' and then type what you just did? This thread is about Harry Potter, isn't it? And I can only throw up my hands in response to your analysis of what my initial comment was all about. I was intentionally being a pest; I don't see how anything suggests that anyone is supposed to be 'committed' to my view.

You want me to make it about me? Saying an artwork does "harm" is incoherent to me. Can one have an unfavorable opinion about it? Sure. But I truly believe it is a mistake to place blame on an artwork for existing. I will rant forever on how terrible I thought Bridesmaids and Transformers 3 were. But, to say that those should not have been made (in a way) is just dumb. Why would one be motivated to have such an opinion?

I don't blame The Merchant of Venice for existing, and I don't think art is there to make us better people, affect social change, 'do good' or whatever. I was making a side point about your South Park reference. It was just a simple sociological/historical comment. Why you made this a central issue to haggle over is beyond me. Saying that an argument I never made and never will make is 'dumb' is just infuriating.

In fact, my anger from those two movies I mentioned stems from the idea that I thought they were redeemable. That implies, "Yes, those movies should have been made." I can only fault someone making something for not trying hard enough. I don't think that's the case in Harry Potter, and I really don't think that's the case for Mumford and Sons. I do think that was the case for Transformers and Bridesmaids (freaking Kristen Wiig, no killer instinct). It just seems that sometimes, you want to fault artists for more than that, for other standards, and I don't get where that comes from. At all.

Especially when it comes to simple and decadent stuff, like what Harry Potter is supposed to be. As long as the artist in question is actually inspired by his or her creating, then "having fun" is a sufficient reason to like something. Rowling doesn't seem to me as someone who just slapped something together and expects people to like it, making her money. I think she actually cares about it. It doesn't mean that it was not going to be bad. If it was, though, I wouldn't pay any attention to it to form a meaningful opinion, and continue to acknowledge and respect its existence. Not saying that anything else is "unfair," but instead incoherent.

Dude, seriously, the only 'true' criticism is about how hard someone tried? Are you 12? I'm not saying that Rowling, that horrible band or whomever is a bad person or anything. I'm not faulting anyone for anything besides the strength of their work. We do this all the time when we judge baseball players. Also, I don't quite understand the way you choose to use the word 'incoherent', but I don't really care to go that much further with this.

[Doc]

Soooo, anyone see the last Harry Potter film yet?

[ZachTavlin]

Soooo, anyone see the last Harry Potter film yet?

Gak and I are going tonight actually.

[Doc]

Gak and I are going tonight actually.

Well please practice safe philosophizing.

[Luke]

I also dislike both Harry Potter and Mumford and Sons...


...just saying...

[BelieveinNYM]

I also dislike both Harry Potter and Mumford and Sons...


...just saying...

I despise Lord of the Rings.

Throwing that in!

[Bruce Wayne]

Well, Eclipse is just trash.