Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

That next HARRY POTTER thingamagig!

Harry here, pleased as punch that Spidey bloodied the nose of that punk kid Harry Potter! Now, I liked that film, but having Spidey owning his snot-nosed punk face... well it just delights me to no end, because Spider-Man is forever cool, and Harry Potter is this new fangled flash in the pan generation's deally. (Note: FLAME BAIT) Hehehehe... Actually, I have to admit, I'm excited to see the next one, and all this gibberish that the following says... I have no idea if it is accurate to the book or not, and I don't really know or care, though I'm sure lots of you do. SO read and rant or rave. Matters not to me, I just want the movie to be good!


On the new Harry Potter DVD, producer David Heyman talks about the plans for Quidditch in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

"What we've got in the second film is, we've honed it a little bit, it'll be, i think the movement will be a little faster. We're also incorporating a trench around the outside of the field which will be where a great portion of the action will take place, where Harry gets chased by a bludger throughout the field".

He goes on to add, " In the Chamber of Secrets we have many new characters, amongst them Gilderoy Lockhart, wonderfull narcissistic and self promoting proffessor of the dark arts being played by Kenneth Branagh."

Chris Columbus and Heyman then add "we meet Ron's father, Arthur weasley, Lucius Malfoy, who is malfoy's father. who is wonderfully evil. We get to meet a new student, called Colin Creevy who's an obsessive fan of Harry Potter constantly taking photographs. Another new character is Ginny Weasly, Ron's Sister....We get to meet Madam Pomfrey who runs the hospital, Madam Sprout who runs the greenhouse."

Heyman then adds "The other thing which we have in the second film, which i really love is the flying car which Ron and Harry fly, a Ford Anglia to Hogwarts which was a great cause of havoc and mayhem and was a great deal of fun. There is the whomping willow, which is a willow, that whomps! Harry at a certain point in the second film is a suspect in the horrors that are going on at the school and in so being is cast aside and is looked on with both fear and dislike by many of the students."

Columbus Continues "And you are telling a story which is a little bit darker than the last one and the characters are a year older, and little things are happening with each character."

That's all i know for now.


Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 10, 2002, 7:01 a.m. CST


    by cardinal_phantom

    Its kinda lame, but I'd never seen a blank talkback field and I had to try.

  • May 10, 2002, 7:10 a.m. CST

    Screw Potter!!!

    by Mr_Nobody

    what, i have to say it again?? Harry Potter is nothing but pop culture...we'll all be thankful in 10 years when know one remembers the bloody thing!!

  • May 10, 2002, 7:14 a.m. CST

    Stay on target Harry.......

    by Sadako

    Bludger: I have you now.

  • May 10, 2002, 7:23 a.m. CST

    So What?!

    by Praetor

    So you've got a flying Ford Anglia and a whomping willow? The Two Towers has got Helms Deep and the attack of the Ents. I know which film I'll be watching this fall. Both of them.

  • May 10, 2002, 7:34 a.m. CST

    Nice one!!

    by laguna_loire

    I'll be buying my copy of Harry Potter tomorrow. Sorry Harry, you're too good to flamebait, and if you're a Spiderman fan so what? I love the Harry Potter books and I can't wait for the Spidey film in June here in the UK, provided I can fit it in, what with the arrival of my son/daughter - whatever!! Bring it on!!

  • May 10, 2002, 7:36 a.m. CST

    Pretty Shitty Bang Bang

    by Glynyfaron

    A car that flies? Wow, a car that flies. What a totally amazing concept. How about sticking a f**king child catcher in there as well. I wouldn't mind seeing that wee ginger git in a cage.

  • May 10, 2002, 7:38 a.m. CST

    Mr_Nobody: Have you read the books?

    by mr stay puft

    They are wonderful. Beautifully written with engaging characters & exciting twists & turns. I have not seen the movie, so I cannot attest to its quality, but, I think you underestimate the staying power of Mr. Potter. Based on the quality of the BOOKS, he will be with us for a long, long time. Spider-man has been extremely popular for a long time, and this is the first movie ever done about it. His staying power was based on the quality of the COMICS. Also, I can't think of anything that defines "pop culture" more than Star Wars. It's been a lot more ten years for George & his creation.

  • May 10, 2002, 7:54 a.m. CST

    Can't wait!

    by SweetSyl

    I love the fact every Harry Potter book is more interesting and darker than the previous one. The characters actually evolve and grow older - but how would you know if you haven't read the books? Anyways, I happen to like HP, Spiderman, LOTR AND Star Wars. I'm not your typical crybaby talkbacker who finds something negative with everything that gets released.

  • May 10, 2002, 8:02 a.m. CST

    Comic books

    by thinboyslim

    Surely if a comic book can relate to several generations spawn countless TV series and be worth investing several million dollors in, it is just as engaging if not more so than the HP books. Do you really think Potter would have become a movie or even worked as a comic, I seriously doubt it, yet I would say LOTR would have!

  • May 10, 2002, 8:26 a.m. CST

    Am I really seeing this?

    by Hobbitastic

    SPIDER-MAN VS. HARRY POTTER??!!!! 40+ years of comic books, cartoons, all sorts of memorabilia up against 5 years of children's books. WHOOOOO! What a challenge! SUCH A FUCKING TRIUMPH! You fucks are going to get so jaded pretty soon, you won't like anything anymore and wind up desperately reminiscing over your long gone childhoods... oh wait. You're already there. STOP KILLING POP CULTURE!!

  • May 10, 2002, 8:27 a.m. CST

    sounds exactly like the book

    by Sammy_Jankis

    I have read all the books (it feels good to share that with fellow geeks). Chamber is the weakest link, but it should still make a good movie. While I'm here, a rant: anyone see the headline where Spiderman is getting more entries on than any other movie? That pisses me off. 1) most of them aren't even right. I read them before I saw the movie a second time. They're baseless. 2) watch the fucking movie for the movie. who cares if someone's hand moves a little when the angle changes? 3) those are the worst type of geek. bitter.

  • May 10, 2002, 8:46 a.m. CST

    Harry Morgan + Sherman Potter = Harry Potter

    by DrKnow

    Coincidence or conspiracy?

  • May 10, 2002, 8:55 a.m. CST

    Sod off, Knowles!

    by Fawst

    Hehe and I ain't even a Brit. In fact... SCREW YOU, England! "Oh, the American kids are pretty stupid, let's change the title to something they'll understand, like the Sorcerer's Stone. Philosopher is just too much for them!" I'd love to smack the douchebag who came up with that in the face with a copy of Dark Tower IV: Mirror and Glass... Anyways. Knowles: GO READ THE GOD DAMN BOOKS! You who suffered through TMNT Live on Stage can "suffer" through them. They're great, honestly. You do of course realise that Two Towers is going to punch your precious Peter Parker in the sack for its opening weekend, right? (For the record, Spider-man is the best comic book ADAPTION ever. Unbreakable is still the best SUPERHERO movie) Someone above said that CoS was the weakest link of the series. Nah, the first one was. Great book, but the series just gets better and better as it goes. Goblet of Fire... they're gonna have to bite the bullet and make a 4 hour spectacle complete with intermission. A two parter with a 6 month gap will not do it justice. While the first half has a lot going on, it doesn't have enough substance to stand on its own. But the second half... god damn.

  • May 10, 2002, 9:04 a.m. CST

    What you just said

    by Almost Sexy

    "Secrets" (that's my cool code name/abbreviation for JK ROWLING'S SECOND BOOK IN THE HARRY POTTER SEPTOGY: HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS, I came up with it myself, mind), is definitely the slowest/paced and least engrossing book in the series thus far. And how not into a movie do you have to be to start noticing these errors? "Wait a minute... That woman in the purple coat was on the other side of the street entering the Bartell's drug store when the dark brown Barracuda was heading west on Blanchard. But when the camera cuts back to (the protagonist's name here, for purpsoses of this dramatization), the coat's draped over her shoulder, and she's carrying a McDonald's sack in her hands, which now are clad in gloves??? Further examination with an electronic bore-you-to-death-o-scope further reveals that the styrofoam case with the McDonald's logo was of the exact type used for temperature insulation in the McDLT, which hasn't been served in the US since the late 1980's. What do they take us for?? Sam didn't do his homework....

  • May 10, 2002, 9:08 a.m. CST

    re: Fawst

    by vertigo93

    Do you really think the title change for the first Harry Potter was made by the English in England? It'll be a decision straight off the WB lot, so don't blame it on us - they'll have done market research for the title - like they did when a Bond movie was going to be called License Revoked and discovered 70% of Americans didn't know what 'revoked' meant, so they changed it to License To Kill. I thank you...

  • May 10, 2002, 9:14 a.m. CST

    Why is Harry so smug about not having read the books?

    by Rain_Dog

    I mean, seriously, why on earth is it such a point of pride for him? Last time I checked, the act of not doing something didn't constitute an achievement. Fair enough if he just can't be fucked, but to act like he's some kind of moral giant for not reading them is absurd. I myself liked the books; my twelve-year old sister forced me to see them after I got high and railroaded her into watching X-Men with me and my friends. They're great children's adventure romps, they remind me of the good times at boarding school, and more importantly, they're quite well written. They're not James Joyce, but neither are half of the ridiculous adult books some of you guys drool over (that's right, I'm talking about Tom Clancy again). The movie was a bit of a disappointment, although I did grin like a fool the whole first time I saw it. Oh, and they guy who complained about HP being "just popular culture," exactly what the fuck do you come here for, smartarse?

  • May 10, 2002, 9:16 a.m. CST

    I gave Potter a chance...

    by BurlIvesLeftNut

    Now, I want to kick him in the nuts. Harry Potter was the worst movie going experience I had last year next to A.I. I knew nothing about the character, but I had a friend who want to go. She read all the books, and you know what? SHE FELL ASLEEP. I was sitting there watching this abortion of a film wondering how I could kill myself with a plastic straw and a pack of Twizzlers and she just dozes off. I don't blame Columbus, and I don't blame the actors. I blame the author for crafting such a luciously stupid story. Drama 101 says you need a character who grows. Potter was a static as a sweater. Most annoying child pandering property ever.

  • May 10, 2002, 9:34 a.m. CST

    RE: Rain_Dog

    by Eat_Your_Peas

    I think that Harry mentioned once back before the movie came out that his plan was to read the books after each movie came out. I don't think he is necessarily avoiding them, but wants to go in clean. If I remember correctly, he thought it would be difficult to wait so long before reading all of them.//On a different note, I thought the books were pretty good but the first movie bored me. It was somewhat amusing to see some of the things brought to life on screen but the entire movie didn't seem to sparkle the way the books do.

  • May 10, 2002, 9:46 a.m. CST

    JK Rowling's gonna lose it

    by Snuggleskunk

    damn it pisses me off that the average yank is so dumb they have to change film titles. My boyfriends ordered the sodding american dvd as well so I'm going to be stuck with the sodding sorcerers stone dammit. ANyway Chamber of secrets was an alright book but the books don't start kicking arse till Sirius Black turns up so the films haven't got a hope. And who chose Kenneth Branagh to play Lockhart? So many people could have done it better!!! Rupert Everett for one. ANyway bring on the goblet of fire and let's all hope that JK ROwling manages to write the follow up that an incredible book like that deserves.

  • May 10, 2002, 9:46 a.m. CST

    I love the concept

    by rev_skarekroe

    The concept of putting out a new flick annually, that is. Didn't they used to do that sort of thing back in the '30s and '40s? Granted, the films didn't maintain the quality level, but it's neat concept, nonetheless. BTW, License Revoked sounds like the name of a Leslie Nielson parody movie. License to Kill is a better title. sk

  • May 10, 2002, 10:21 a.m. CST

    This news is basically plot detail.

    by Chilli Kramer

    From a book that's been out for years. Not really news then... Oh, and Harry, if you have the time, read the books. They're no chore to read. I couldn't put them down, and I normally don't like 'light' stuff. They wouldn't take long to read, and once you started you'd sail thru them. Bear that in mind. Anyone else who hasn't read them: if you're looking for a good, but non - taxing read, these are the books for you. If you've got kids who've not read them, give them the books. It'll get you many hours of silence.

  • May 10, 2002, 10:24 a.m. CST


    by BurlIvesLeftNut

    The irony of your post has supplied me with enough laughs to last the weekend! If only Harry Potter was so entertaining!

  • May 10, 2002, 10:52 a.m. CST

    the reason i think harry potter will be amazing as an entire seq

    by crash_davis

    is that the books get darker, the characters get more complex, and things aren't nearly as simple as they were presented in the first movie (which, btw, i had no problems with -- i was drawn into it as happily as a little child). it seems as though columbus and co. are on the right track and that there won't be any simple answers as the films progress. i hope.

  • May 10, 2002, 11:03 a.m. CST

    harry potter movies

    by fun guy

    i liked harry potters first movie and wouldn't have seen it but my wife made me go once. i made her go with me to lord of the rings four times. she got sick of lord of the rings and said she wouldn't go five times and i have to go to harry potter movies with her whenever she wants. i'll have to go to every harry potter movie so i might as well pay attention to the harry potter news. i never read the books yet but i heard they get better later

  • May 10, 2002, 11:04 a.m. CST

    Just noticed: There's a good Sam Raimi comparison here....

    by Chilli Kramer

    Not to Spidrerman, but to Evil Dead 2. ED2 had a car that (briefly) flew thru the air. It had horrors going on, it had new characters introduced, and it definitely had a fighting tree. Plus it was a virtual retread of the first movie, and I felt the 1st two Potter books were very similar. All we need now is Harry getting a broomstick for an arm... "Groovy"

  • May 10, 2002, 11:06 a.m. CST

    The Reason

    by bezman1

    Of course Harry and many others of you have not read the Harry Potter's not a comic book. Having to read an entire page of text would be too daunting for the eye trained for the large, multi-colored letters forming onomatopoeic words such as Pow! Kaboom! Splat!

  • May 10, 2002, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Remakes, Sequels, Prequels and no originals!

    by bowendesign

    It's offical, ladies and gentleman. Hollywood has lost it's guts completely. A new Harry Potter. Hurrah. Let's throw our hands in the air. The first one was OK, but that was all. Good for kids, not a modern classic. GIVE UP! Do the Dark Materials trilogy instead! THERE ARE SOME FANTASTIC BOOKS OUT THERE, ORIGINAL FILMS READY TO BE MADE! Perhaps executives ought to do moer reading, both of books and submitted scripts of orignal ideas and get off page one, give someone a chance. The last great movie out of Hollywood was The Gladiator. Some may argue, but that film had it all! Make a film of Iain M Bank's Sci-Fi novels! Or how about Muriel Gray's The Trickster? Anyone read that? Now THAT'S BEGGING TO BE COMMITED TO CELLULOID. How about a well-realised version of Where The Wild Things Are? A more mysterious and inspirational book than a dozen Potters, and definitely the god-awful Shrek! Plot? WHAT PLOT??? IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF JOKES LOOSELY STRUNG TOGETHER! Saving grace - DONKEY! And what's with this Scorpion King cack? HOW MANY MORE MILLIONS ARE GOING TO BE WASTED? My veins! My spleen! *ack* *ack* IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD! How about a film of Dante's Hell? Mervyn Peakes GORMENGHAST? (The BBC version was terrible) Put some money into Good Omens! CALVIN AND HOBBES! Do a good version of I AM LEGEND! I was talking to Neal Scanlan at Bafta last year, and he was saying how much SFX artists want to do a modern equivalent of Labyrinth! Put money in that, not another lame-o Eddie Murphy Man-On-The-Moon vehicle! MY GOD! LOOK AROUND! THE RICHES ARE THERE, JUST DIG IN THE RIGHT PLACE! I'm going back to work now, but I'LL BE BACK. *wheeze,puff* AAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

  • May 10, 2002, 11:10 a.m. CST

    The movie sucked big time.

    by HagCeli

    Am I the only one who thinks that Harry Potter was a terrible, terrible film? 150 minutes of neatly-decorated exposition, big plot holes, bland characters without any development and a magic stone that didn't even show up. Crap.

  • May 10, 2002, 11:13 a.m. CST

    Harry Potter is great!

    by cappaccio

    I don't know why people are getting so upset over Harry Potter, I love Harry Potter, I love the books, I love the movie. I love LOTR, Star Wars and Spidey!!! I am excited for EPII, TTT, and CoS. People who do all this nitpicking crap are just wasting money, just go see the freakin' movie and enjoy it.

  • May 10, 2002, 11:14 a.m. CST

    Wow, if the backlash is this angry, HP must have been a great fi

    by minderbinder

    I think some other franchises are a wee bit jealous that HP bumped them a slot on the BO charts...

  • May 10, 2002, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Just an average dumb Yank

    by SutureSelf

    Americans are dumb. I guess that's why they haven't been able to win 43% of all Nobel physics prizes, 36% of all Nobel chemistry prizes, 49% of all Nobel medicine prizes and 65% of all Nobel economics prizes. Oh, wait...never mind - my dumb mistake. Suit yourself.

  • May 10, 2002, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Harry Potter: Army of Darkness

    by Snuggleskunk

    What a cool idea.

  • May 10, 2002, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Leav Calvin and Hobbes alone!

    by Snuggleskunk

    All our other childhood memories have been sullied by hollywood and the like trying to recreate them just as we imagined them. It does nothing but breed bitterness and malicous talk backs and you can never enjoy them because it's just not comrotable and it's not how you remembered it. STOP THE RAPE AND DON@T YOU DARE TOUCH CALVIN AND HOBBES

  • May 10, 2002, 11:47 a.m. CST


    by AshFett

    First off, huge Harry Potter fan here. Enjoyed the movie a lot, LOVE, love, love the books. And guess what? I'm also a life long Spider-Man fan (have every issue of Amazing/Web/Spectacular/Marvel Tales/Ultimate/Unlimited/Etc since 1983 when I started reading) and thought that movie ruled! AND, AND I love Star Wars in a huge way. Are you sitting down? Can you believe it? I somehow can love more then one franchise. I know, it's shocking. Uh, sorry, not a huge Lord of the Rings fan. Never read the books, thought the movie was okay. Anyway, shame on Harry for adding to the "Spider-Man kicked Harry's ass" type thing. Harry Potter is the second biggest movie ever world wide. Personally, like I said, I liked the Harry Potter movie, but it wasn't one of my favorite films ever. But if we're only going by box office, Harry has still "kicked the ass" of EVERY SINGLE MOVIE EVER RELEASED that isn't Titanic. But here's my bigger point: This entire story Harry put up is made up by whoever sent it in! David Hayter is not a producer on the Harry Potter series. Has nothing to do with those movies. All this "Story" was were quotes that were either fabricated or copied from another source that have "columbus" and "Hayter" telling plot points that ANYONE who has read the book can tell you. So let's end this with the usual, "HARRY, READ THE FREAKING BOOKS! They're wonderful!" If you do, maybe I'll read Lord of the Rings. ;)

  • May 10, 2002, 11:49 a.m. CST

    This means we'll need to suffer through another 2.5 hours of

    by antibody

    Columbus and Rowling should have learned with the first movie that there are reasons why you leave things out of film adaptations of books. Even Shakespeare gets edited from time to time!

  • May 10, 2002, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Some details about #5...

    by JTylor

    The publishing company wants to cash in on the movie tie-in, so may be trying to hold it back until the movie of Chamber of Secrets comes out. The other thing: Daniel Radcliffe doesn't have to stay 11 forever, since each novel is a year at Hogwart's. Harry is 11 in the the first, 12 in the second, and so on. He *will* be sprouting whiskers and possibly shaving by the last book, anyway, so that's not an issue! And, apparently, Rowling has the whole freaking thing planned out: she knows how it ends, and in some drafts of the first chapter of "Philosopher's Stone" practically gave away the whole game.

  • May 10, 2002, 12:12 p.m. CST

    oh...Harry Potter...i didn

    by VincentSpain

    it was cute, yes

  • May 10, 2002, 12:26 p.m. CST

    Dude, Where's My Precious?

    by Ruby_Rod

    That is just funny as shit. It doesn't change the fact LOTR ownz Harry Potter, but it is extremely fucking funny. Actually I have nothing against Harry Potter. Anything that gets kids to read is cool by me, and from what I hear the books aren't total pablum. But adults should be reading the Gormenghast trilogy instead. It's even illustrated!

  • May 10, 2002, 12:28 p.m. CST

    The last HP wasn't faithful at all

    by Drath

    Are you kidding me? It was a lifeless immitation! The novels aren't exactly Shakespeare, but they have heart. That movie was more interested in renacting all the flashy scenes(the quidditch scene getting the most energy), but when it came to introducing Harry's fellow Hogwart students on the train, setting up his rivalry with Malfoy, and creating the uneven relationship Harry has with the other students the movie fell miserably flat(and let's not even go into the Harry-killed-Quirrel change). The book could be enjoyed by children and adults alike, while the film was for kids alone(and the less thoughtful kids at that). ****** To Harry, every time you talk about HP, you always give me the impression that you haven't read the books and that you don't seem to place much importance on you personally reading anything that isn't movie scripts or net news/gossip about movies. I hope I'm wrong. I remember you had problems with the HP movie, and a lot of those problems were created by the MOVIE and were not shared by the books(don't ask a second opinion though, read for yourself). I don't think these Columbus movies are worth your trying to remain unspoiled by not reading the source material first. Of course, it naturally depends on your priorities.

  • May 10, 2002, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Can't we all just get along?

    by Potch

    What I don't understand is, why must evreyone insult each other? Yes, some of us enjoy Harry Potter. Some of us enjoy LoTR. Some of us enjoy Spider Man. Some of us enjoy all three. And yes, some of us don't. But there is no reason to cuss each other out and insult each other, just because we disagree. Everyone has different tastes, and we should just accept that. There are plenty of movies, television shows, and books out there that are very popular, yet I feel that they are a great waste of time and energy. but, I'm not going to go around telling people they are stupid for enjoying them. Now, as for the Harry Potter movie... yeah, there are parts that could have been better, but, has any movie ever been totally perfect. Doubtful. Even the best movies ever made have had some sort of flaws in them. As for the movie staying true or not true to the book... well, I think they did a great job. Yes, many scenes were left out. But people, the movie was 2 and half hours long. That's a pretty long movie... especially for kids. They had to cut scenes. I thought they captured the feeling of the book really well. Someone above made a comment about the movie being a dramatization of the book... now, I may be wrong, but isn't that what a movie from a book is supposed to be? What, did you want them to completely change the story? Someone else made a comment about having to sit through another two and a half hours of this movie.... well, hun, nobody is forcing you to watch the movie. If you don't want to, don't. There are plenty more of us that want to watch it. Now honestly, does it REALLY matter which movie made more money? Does that really prove that a movie is good? Does that really prove that a movie is worth watching? Does that really prove that a movie is enjoyable? I highly doubt it. There are plenty of movies out there that made some serious bank, and I realy thought they were a waste of film. All the box office gross proves is that somebody knows how to advertise and coerce people into going to a movie. Seriously. So does it REALLY make any difference whether Spidey or LoTR or HP made more money? Personally I thought they were all fantastic in their own way. I enjoyed all three, but for different reasons. To compare these movies to each other is ludicrous. They all also had their problems. They all cut things out of the story. They all added things to the story. They all changed major plots in the story. Big deal. They were still fun to watch, and isn't that what it's all about? And if you didn't think they were fun to watch, fine. That's your thing. But why can't we all be a little nicer to each other about it? Oh, one more thing.... Harry, you really should read the books. :-)

  • May 10, 2002, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Book Names

    by 14 Characters

    Okay Faust they had to change the name of the movie because some jackass in the states had a stupid book named the same thing and was going to sue if they used it for the movie.

  • May 10, 2002, 1:13 p.m. CST


    by Psynapse

    ***Idaho Chickie, unfortunately this is AICN where flaming is an art form. Still like what you said though. ***FLAME BAIT: I've read all 4 books and loved 'em. Saw the movie and loved it too. You didn't? Tough shit. Want to attempt to bolster your weak ego? BRING IT. You'll only be getting a Nagasaki hotfoot right back atcha.

  • May 10, 2002, 1:36 p.m. CST

    THIS IS A SCOOP? All you have to do is read any of the books to

    by chuckrussel

    'nuff said.

  • May 10, 2002, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Ice cream, lollipops..........And all free today

    by Holysloth

    Flying cars? Chitty chitty bang bang? God the child catcher is scary!

  • May 10, 2002, 2:03 p.m. CST

    My own Harry thoughts!

    by HollyS

    I personaly thought the movie was ok but no i would not give the first harry potter film a 10. They may do better with the second one. I thought some of the actors where awsome, my favorite was definately Allen Rickman who played Snap BEAUTIFULY. And ofcourse the actor who played hagrid was awsome. I PRAY Columbus does a beter job for the second film installment. The second movie IS dark, not 100 percent dark but enough that i hope he doesnt make this to kiddy like. As for the actors in the second film, I saw the guy who plays Lucius Malfoy and the guy is an AWSOME actor. Hes perfect and I personaly cant wait to see him in this film. keneth Branaugh is awsome as well! I think he'll give this movie flare. And this other funny rumor going around is that Columbus is triyng to get Ewan Mcgreggor to play Professor Lupin. Now that would just be TOTALY ironic. Anyway lets all just have our fingers crossed and hope the second film is done better!

  • May 10, 2002, 2:27 p.m. CST


    by GeneralZoddd

    Oh WOW! I was going to save this info but now I can come forward!!! The info Harry got was totally on the ball! In fact I managed to get an EXTENDED TREATMENT for the film!!! Almost a scriptment! It's like ultra detailed!!! I found it on the net and clicked through a few links (it's kind of hidden) and got in touch with this guy with no name and I came home from work two days later and he'd left in on my doorstep!!! Here's the link!!! It may be a early draft!! Zoddd

  • May 10, 2002, 2:43 p.m. CST

    well, well

    by greyspecter

    first, the next Harry Potter book is coming out in june. that's next june, not this june. also, i thought the movie was too rushed. they should have made a tv movie or something, and made it a good three, three-and-a-half hours to do it justice. the books are great, almost as good as Narnia. (by the way, any thoughts on the live-action films they've got inthe works for Lewis' novels?) the point being that books made into movies are never, ever, EVER as good as the books themselves. that's a fact. they are different mediums. i personally try to enjoy both, and comic books too. so my advice would be to read the books first, not to compare apples to baked potatoes, and enjoy this time we're living in! Star Wars, Spiderman, X-men, Men in Black, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, woooohooooo!

  • May 10, 2002, 2:46 p.m. CST


    by greyspecter

    Dude, where's my Precious. HA! i laughed a good five minutes at that one. not to be consciously contentious, but i thought x-men was better than spidey. though maybe this isn't the tb to bring it up

  • I appreciate to hear what you think, go to (my site). Gracias..

  • May 10, 2002, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Thats the bright side

    by Andy Andy

    I am utterly stupefied by Spiderman's success. I don't get it, I don't understand it, I am confused. However, I am glad that it blew that piece of crap Harry Potter away. Why? Harry Potter had no vision- Chris Columbus wasnt passionate about the story. Even if he was, that british author whore wouldnt have let him do anything. That was a pure industry film that was just out there for the kiddie drones to lap up. Say what you will about Spiderman, at least Riami and crew actually gave a damn about the story. You can argue all you want about how the special effects were crap (and they are crap), and all other minutia. But Spiderman, the movie, has a SOUL. It was created by people who love the damn thing. And I will take that over a hollow blockbuster like Harry Potter any day.

  • May 10, 2002, 3:33 p.m. CST

    HP Title Change

    by blocktek

    Don't blame WB for the "Philosopher's/Sorcerer's" change. The publisher changed the title of the book back when it was originally published in the US. WB is only staying consistent with that change. They also "Americanized" some of the language in the first books, though it didn't seem like they were still doing that in the 4th installment.

  • May 10, 2002, 4:23 p.m. CST


    by Till

    First, to 242, it's sad that adults read Harry Potter books but comics are okay? I'm not attacking comics but your statements are ridiculous. I am an adult, which some of you haters clearly aren't, and I love the Harry Potter books. They are enchanting stories with great and magical characters. Are they just a flash in the pan? I doubt it. When today's kids are our age, they will hold these books in the same regard that many of us hold stuff like Star Wars, LOTR, Narnia, and Spider-Man. I am a teacher and I startes reading the first one b/c 1 of my students bought it for my classroom and I wanted to know about the things my students were reading. Now I am collecting all of them in hardback for my personal collection. Enough on that rant. Next, the 1st movie was okay but it lacked the magic of the book. However, kinda like TPM,and in some ways Spider-Man, this one was really a prologue that sets things up for the future installments. The books get better as they go, I think the movies will as well. Finally, I will echo one of the earlier TBs in decrying these rivalries. I love Star Wars and can't wait for AOTC, i enjoyed Spider-Man and look forward to the 2nd, I enjoyed FOTR and will see TTT soon after release, and eagerly anticipate Chamber of Secrets. Who cares which makes more money as long as they are enjoyable to me. The $ values are BS anyway b/c if you were to go on tickets sold, Gone With the Wind still kicks everybody's ass, even that stupid boat movie! Start publishing that list and we'll talk. Now, go outside!

  • May 10, 2002, 4:25 p.m. CST

    1 other thing

    by Till

    And 1 other thing, Harry read the books already!!!!!

  • May 10, 2002, 4:34 p.m. CST

    More sigh...

    by AshFett

    Just had to point out, regarding my earlier post: Harry has fixed the mistakes, so that the piece now says David Heyman, not Hayter. But as I said earlier, this piece is about as informative as one saying, "On the Fellowship of the Ring DVD, Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh tell us somethings to expect from the Two Towers. There were be a huge battle at Helms Deep! And Gandalf returns as Gandalf the White! Sam and Frodo continue to try to get rid of the ring!" A: Isn't it funny how I have not read Lord of the Rings but can state the above thanks to tons of posts mentioning them? B: If I can do that, can't Harry, or at least SOMEONE at the site decide when a Harry Potter piece is simply listing events anyone who has read the book already knows?

  • May 10, 2002, 4:37 p.m. CST

    Why Harry Potter is old news...

    by CoolDan989

    Spider-Man is beating every record the first Harry Potter movie set, and J.K. Rowling has writer's block. By the time she writes another Potter book, she says it will be around 2003. I think it's time to condemn Harry Potter to kid craze wasteland, along with Pokemon.

  • May 10, 2002, 5:04 p.m. CST


    by Potch

    I still fail to see what box office sales have to do with how good a movie is. I mean, ya'll are going on and on about how Spidey is SO much better, just because it made more money. Harry Potter is old news just because something else is making more money? There's always going to be something that comes up and makes more money, making people forget about something else. I predict in about a week, people are going to be going Spider-who? Because another big blockbuster is going to blow our pal Spidey right out of the water. It's called hype my friends, and it really has nothing to do with the quality of a film.

  • May 10, 2002, 5:28 p.m. CST

    When did fans start getting so invested in box office returns?

    by St.Buggering

    And just how is Harry Potter "old news" simply because Spider-Man broke its record? This may come as a shock to some of you, but the studios just like making lots of money. It doesn't particularly matter that another movie made MORE, as long as their movie rakes it in. I guarantee that as New Line watches their Lord of the Rings money cascade in, they're not crying that Harry Potter made more. You people are the only ones who think this way, and you're not seeing a dime of it. It is a business, and yes, it is competetive, but Spider-Man will no longer be in theaters when Harry Potter hits, so I don't see the relationship. And on a more relevant note, I've just started the third Harry Potter book, and I'm really looking forward to this whole series. Like some of you, I used to make fun of adults who read these. Consider me converted.

  • May 10, 2002, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Reasons to see

    by Bloodied Fox

    Loved the books, haven't seen the first film yet (I'll grab the video on Sunday). Anyhoo, I'll certainly be seeing the second film, even if the two after it have more potential. Reasons: 1)Kenneth Branagh. Kenneth Branagh overacting. Kenneth Branagh overacting while playing possibly the funniest character in the books. Lockhart is great because he's a complete egomaniac impervious to common sense or reason. Even funnier, he honestly believes that everyone loves him, even when they hate his guts (most notably Snape). Not only can Branagh pull this off, it'll make a nice change from his Shakespearian work (Which is great, of course). 2)There's a great forum for some excellent FX work. There is real potential for stand out effects sequences, especially Aragog (even if he isn't a patch on Shelob) and the final fight in the Chamber of Secrets. 3)It's where the books start to get nasty. Even if it isn't anywhere as dark as 'Goblet of Fire' (What other kid's book features unheroic death and torture to such an extent, especially inflicted upon the main character?), it's still a damn sight darker then the first one and most other films aiming at the younger end of the market. One more thing, can we please stop this childish franchise bashing. I happen to like Star Wars AND LOTR AND I look forward to seeing Spiderman. Just chill Winston!

  • May 10, 2002, 6:35 p.m. CST

    No sir, I don't like it...

    by helvis

    I don't like messing with Quidditch like that. It doesn't make any sense and if you read the book you know what I'm talking about. As for Goblet of Fire, rumor is you'll have to wait for that. I remember seeing somewhere that even Prisoner of Azkaban would be a big undertaking and that movie production would stop with that one. I don't even think book four will see the big screan (unless it's done with a new cast later down the road). Too bad, that's been my favorite book so far.

  • May 10, 2002, 6:41 p.m. CST

    <sigh> Sometimes, I just want to give up...

    by badbunny9

    Harry Potter makes me happy. I am an adult and Harry Potter makes me happy. If someone thinks that&#39;s pathetic, then maybe they should take a good look at themselves. Harry Potter is pathetic but adults who play Magic aren&#39;t? Adults who read comic books? Adults who create comic books? And don&#39;t even get me started on toy collectors... I don&#39;t understand why so many people get so excited about bashing Harry Potter. Case in point, my best friend Bob refuses to read the books on the basis that if it&#39;s popular, it can&#39;t possibly be good. He also goes out of his way to make me feel ashamed of reading them at my age. Someone above likened Harry Potter to Pokemon. The only similarities between the two are the fact that both enjoyed great popularity. While Pokemon was poorly animated drivel, Harry Potter is a well written fantasy series. While Pokemon panders to the lowest common denominator, Harry Potter uses language and literary devices that would probably be more appropriate in an adult fantasy novel. So don&#39;t knock it until you&#39;ve tried it. In closing, I would just like to point out that vast majority of Harry Potter fans are well educated adults who have lives and jobs and a real appreciation for well-written books. And I am damn proud to be one of them! Just as I am damn proud to be an unabashed Disney fan, an undaunted comic book fan, and an unashamed toy collector.

  • May 10, 2002, 6:54 p.m. CST

    I Was Stopped As I Tried To Go Into The Theater To See SPIDER-MA

    by Buzz Maverik

    Some white guy dressed all in black said, "Excuse me, sir." "Yes." "May I see some identification?" "What for?" "Are you going to see SPIDER-MAN?" "Yeah. What do you need to see my i.d. for?" "We have reason to believe that you&#39;;ve seen OTHER movies." "Well, of course I have. I saw HARRY POTTER and LORD OF THE RINGS and in a couple of weeks I&#39;m gonna see ATTACK OF THE CLONES." "You&#39;d better come with us. You&#39;re in big trouble, buddy!"

  • May 10, 2002, 7:18 p.m. CST

    Screw Harry Potter, I wanna see Harry Knowles in Goldmember! htt

    by DumbAssTalkback

    Harry, you sooooooooooo sexy! mmmm mmm mmm!

  • May 10, 2002, 7:19 p.m. CST

    Strange Coincidence

    by DrBalzack

    Well, i guess all coincidences are strange, but that&#39;s beside the point. Same thing happened to me Buzz, what a crazy world we live in. The difference between your incident and mine is that i told the man in the black outfit to go funk himself in the arse. You should have tried that technique.

  • May 10, 2002, 10:34 p.m. CST

    ok, so....

    by Mr_Nobody

    to respond to an earlier question, no, i&#39;ve not read the Potter books. and i don&#39;t plan to. plenty of better books to read...and i&#39;m doing so. i completely believe that Harry Potter is pop culture...not like Spider-man which is a national icon and not like LOTR which is an international classic, and shall remain to be. obviously, Potter hasn&#39;t the 50 years that Spider-man or LOTR has had to establish itself. yet Potter is so popular...i can only think that the rug will be pulled out from underneath its feet. i honestly don&#39;t think the next movie, whatever the hell its called, won&#39;t be anywhere successful as the first one. then again, the populace is quite "herdy" so maybe it will. Titanic anyone?? Titanic??? i&#39;m quite biased about books, so lets talk about the movie. i love Star Wars, hated the Phantom Menace, high hopes for Ep. 2, loved Blade II, LOTR is my daddy, and Spider-man is the best comic book adaptation ever! ok, so i went into Harry Potter never reading the books...clean slate. and honestly, Harry Potter was one of the worst movies i saw last year. the saving graces were Rupert Grint and Alan Rickman...yet not enough to save the movie. Daniel Radcliffe was so stoic...never the little boy entranced by his abilities. no emotion, no enchantment...horrible animation and CGi...wretched direction. i&#39;m sorry, would have walked out of it if i hand&#39;t been blocked in by a myriad of kids. aye, it might have been a flick for kids...but ever heard of intelligent, emotional kid movies? i know a ton of&#39;em...and this isn&#39;t one of them...believe me...this phenomenon will not last.

  • May 10, 2002, 10:38 p.m. CST

    hooked on ponics worked for me!

    by kojiro

    You know, it strikes me, isn&#39;t it best to look literate when insulting literature. Just a thought.

  • May 10, 2002, 10:54 p.m. CST

    sorry, never had to try phonics

    by Mr_Nobody

    Sorry mate, don&#39;t consider pop culture to have the greatest taste in *big thumbs ups*...glad u do tho!!!

  • May 10, 2002, 11:35 p.m. CST

    Trench around the quidditch field ? Star Wars Episode IV ?

    by SpacePhil

    Anybody else seeing the connection here ? -- lemme give you a hint: switch the X-Wing for a broomstick.

  • May 10, 2002, 11:41 p.m. CST

    fuck spider-man

    by BatVomit

    I love the Harry Potter books. The movie adaptation was enjoyable. Neither the books nor the movies are "classics", but they are entertaining and clever. I don&#39;t know why Harry Knowles has to gloat over Spider-Man beating out Harry Potter for opening weekend ticket sales. While the Harry Potter movie admittedly had its flaws, the Spider-Man movie was an overhyped festering pile of putrid crap. I can&#39;t believe so many people were actually satisfied by such a mediocre film.

  • May 10, 2002, 11:50 p.m. CST

    Which phenomenon won&#39;t last, Mr_Nobody?

    by mr stay puft

    The phenomenon of the Harry Potter books, or the big box office of the Harry Potter movies? Of the former, I would submit that, not having read the books (by your own admission), you are not qualified to judge. Of the latter, having not seen the movie (by MY own admission), I am not qualified to judge. You are quick to condemn the herding of pop culture, yet are quick to admit loving that DEFINING pop culture phenomenon, Star Wars. I suspect that your venom toward &#39;the boy who lived&#39; is just jealousy that Frodo couldn&#39;t unseat Mr. Potter as single day Box Office champ. Parents who have read the books will be happy to accompany their kiddies to see Mr. Potter & Company again this fall. I would recommend that Spidey hold off on the trophy engraving until then (if George doesn&#39;t beat him next week).

  • May 11, 2002, 12:03 a.m. CST


    by Mr_Nobody

    I&#39;m not the most qualified just against the Potter books, so i&#39;ll just leave it at that. (i&#39;ll never read them, nor do i have any reason to). but, as u say...i can judge the movie. and while i am quite biased about my books, never about my movies...and i thought Potter was the worst "blockbuster" come out in years. yes, i included Star Wars...yet it wasn&#39;t pop culture when it began. like Spider-man and LOTR it grew in popularity from a cult favorite to overblown popularity. but not with Potter...almost immediately society caught onto with the movies. now i&#39;m sure the movies will have a remaining force in the BO...but then again that it is just a popularity contest. now, i of course was thrilled that FOTR made so much at the BO...and a little disappointed that it didn&#39;t make as much as H.P. yet, believe me...don&#39;t care that much. who got nommed for 13 academy awards...and who should&#39;ve won for most of them. the best picture of the year by arguably the best director of the year. personally, i just hate it when the populace picks up movies (books, art, music) that are so lacking in talent that it just inspires more drivel to be produced. if the next HP turns out to be excellent, i&#39;ll be blow away...i&#39;ll enjoy the hell out of it...but its like thinking that Lucas will make another probably ain&#39;t gonna happen.

  • May 11, 2002, 12:04 a.m. CST

    The poor grammar, the almost incoherent sentence structure, the

    by mr stay puft

    if it wasn&#39;t for the lack of self-absorbed ramblings, I&#39;d suspect that Mr_Nobody was Mr. Knowles in disguise.

  • May 11, 2002, 12:16 a.m. CST

    Mr_Nobody, please...

    by mr stay puft

    1) Star Wars was a pop culture PHENOMENON from DAY 1. 2) Are you trying to convince us that box office receipts are a popularity contest, but Academy Award Nominations are a measure of quality? Once again, please... I submit that both are a popularity contest, the latter is just among a more focused group. 3) FOTR may indeed be a better movie than HP (I didn&#39;t see HP & thought FOTR was OK, incidentally), but both rode the box office wave buoyed by the popularity of the books.

  • May 11, 2002, 1:25 a.m. CST

    Pop culture is not a pejorative term, fuckwit.

    by Rain_Dog

    It denotes those aspects of the cultural realm which are not considered to be &#39;high art&#39; in the traditional sense. It therefore encompasses just about everything discussed here; Spidey, SW, LOTR, you name it. So step down off your high horse, buddy. If you don&#39;t like Harry Potter, fine, but bear in mind that they&#39;re kids books; they&#39;re not meant to be brilliant, experimental works of adult fiction. Same goes for the movie. If certain adults enjoy the books, it doesn&#39;t mean they think Rowling deserves a Nobel prize for lieterature, it just fucking means they enjoyed the books, just the same as they still enjoy going back to Roald Dahl occasionally. I myself liked the books, and was disappointed with the movie. On another note, isn&#39;t it ironic that people are bitching that Columbus WASN&#39;T allowed to change the book? Aren&#39;t you guys always banging on about respecting the source material?

  • May 11, 2002, 3:40 a.m. CST

    Real willows are intelligent and whomp!

    by empyreal0

  • May 11, 2002, 6:33 a.m. CST

    Harry Potter rules!

    by ROBE

    Why do some people have to slate other movies/books. I love Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings books and loved the movies. Spider-man is my favourite comic book superhero (I AM A PROUD OWNER OF A SIGNED STAN LEE SPIDER-MAN COMIC)and I look forward to seeing the movie when it is released in the UK. The five movies I am really looking forward to this year are Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, Spider-man, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, 007 Die Another Day and Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. I can afford to see all five movies several times.

  • May 11, 2002, 7:09 a.m. CST

    Changing the title was gay

    by squonk

    That&#39;s like calling the Holy Grail a "Sacred Chalice" or the Ark of the Covenant a "Box for a Promise" FUCKING UNEDUCATED GAYNESS. Its from antiquity, dammit.

  • May 11, 2002, 8:49 a.m. CST

    Changing Titles

    by Wydok

    Harry Potter and the Philospher&#39;s Stone was changed to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer&#39;s Stone by Scholastic, who published the book in the US. You know, the BOOK? It came out several years before the movie. WB made the movie have two different names so that it would be consistent with the book names. You want to blame someone, blame Scholastic.

  • May 11, 2002, 9:11 a.m. CST

    OK, several things.

    by Wydok

    I agree that the Harry Potter movie wasn&#39;t all that great. It was OK; I don&#39;t regret paying to see it, but it wasn&#39;t nearly as entertaining as the book. ----------------------------- Now, for the book. Some people are just too snobbish. Derivative. Unimaginative. Yeah, sure. It&#39;s not the best fantasy, ever, sure, bit it&#39;s good Children&#39;s Literature. Did you know that was it&#39;s own genre, book snobs? It is, really. Just because a book is for children doesn&#39;t automatically make it bad, or a "fad" as Harry put it. There are lots of great children&#39;s books out there that have lasted for generations, solely on the strength of the book itself. (Ramona, the Fudge books, the Littiel House bookts, the Anne of Green Gables books, Cynhia Voigt, Paula Danzinger, E.B. White, Chris Van Alsburg, Roald Dowl, . . .) I could go on. ---------------------------- Just because the movie was a bit flat doesn&#39;t make Harry Potter as a phenomenon or as a book series bad (or pop culture that won&#39;t last 10 years -- it&#39;s already been 5 since the first book :-P). Just because you are an adult doesn&#39;t make the Harry Potter books bad. Open your mind a litte. Maybe when you have children, you will understand.

  • May 11, 2002, 10:26 a.m. CST

    People can read more than one book at a time!

    by holidill

    I&#39;ve read all four Harry Potter books and loved them. I&#39;ve also read all three LOTR, classics like To Kill a Mockingbird and Red badge of Courage, I&#39;ve read the narnia saga, I&#39;ve read historical books about the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lewis and Clark, I&#39;ve read Star Trek Novels by Peter David, I&#39;ve read comics and I&#39;ve watched movies. And you know what? I did all this is in the past year. My girlfriend reads three or four books on a week. It is possible to do more than one thing and still enjoy a wide variety of items. You should try it. Oh yeah I&#39;ve also been able to work, spend time with my girlfriend and family while I did all this.

  • May 11, 2002, 11:40 a.m. CST

    Mr. Pufty Pufty Puff

    by Mr_Nobody

    1) Star Wars is now pop be honest i don&#39;t know what it was like when it first came out, so i can&#39;t really say anything on the subject. 2) Ach, of course both BO and the Acdamey Awards are popularity contests...with the BO actually maintaining some amount of relative fairness...albiet really screwed up. 3) well, i consider FOTR to be superior to HP and really most movies of last year...but that is, after all, just my opinion. and while i think u&#39;re right by saying that the BO&#39;s of both FOTR and HP were buoyed to an extent by the overwhelming popularities of both books...yet i would contend that the reverse was true for FOTR, that the rise of popularity of the books were increased exponentially by the movie. again, just my, obviously, lacking opionions. and thanks mate for the encouraging words concerning my writing, what am i...supposed to have good grammar on these boards? hell...i deal with rhetoric and grammar all day, last thing i want to do is to keep it up now. and not like Harry and thus not self-absorbed, such compliments!

  • May 11, 2002, 5:46 p.m. CST

    De-euphemization of Heyman&#39;s comments...

    by Robert Blake

    "We&#39;ve honed it a little bit, it&#39;ll be, i think the movement will be a little faster." >>> TRANSLATING >>> "The first movie was so boring, the action scenes were so awful, and the visual effects were so dull, that, in comparison, even "STREET FIGHTER" was cool! Sorry, we&#39;ll try to make it a bit less crappy this time." ******* PLEASE STOP THIS INSANITY! I mean, why do they make movies of the rip-off rather than the original? I&#39;d love to see a "TIM HUNTER" movie!

  • May 11, 2002, 6:03 p.m. CST

    I&#39;m Very Foul Mouthed Myself, But If You&#39;re Defending HA

    by Buzz Maverik

    ...isn&#39;t it time to seek out other forms of entertainment, books and movies that have more to do with where you are at the moment? HARRY POTTER will still be there when you&#39;re ready to reclaim a little lost innocence but for now, may I direct you to Cimmeria or Gor or to the great works of Clive Barker for example? Because if you&#39;re saying "fuck" or referring to "gayness" while defending what truly are stories for kids (unlike STAR WARS, which can be enjoyed for kids but was originally intended for everyone and only gets the "kids movie" tx from fans copping out when its&#39; flaws are mentioned) you&#39;re being ridiculous. It&#39;s like "Fuck that ALICE IN WONDERLAND motherfucking shit! It&#39;s THE OZ books or nothing for me. PETER PAN can suck the big one! PINNOCHIO rules!"

  • May 11, 2002, 6:28 p.m. CST

    The Ford Anglia abso-fucking-lutely rules!

    by Roosterbooster

    I&#39;ve been hankering after a Ford Anglia ever since I saw Vyvyan&#39;s in The Young Ones, yellow with flames painted up the side... mmm...

  • May 12, 2002, 12:59 a.m. CST

    Mr SNOBody

    by LairyFights

    I can see that someone has already challenged you on this point but Star Wars *exploded* onto the scene and became an instant pop culture phenomenon *much* quicker than HP did. To say it was a cult classic is ridiculous. I

  • May 12, 2002, 1:55 a.m. CST

    Guys, we all know how bias and geeky Harry (Knowles) is.

    by euphonium

    We all come here, we see the headlines. As if you&#39;re all suprised that he bags certain movies in relation to others. Big deal, he hasn&#39;t read the books. Big deal, he likes Spiderman better than Potter. My opinion on this everlasting conflict over pop-culture movies. I, of course, love Star Wars. I didn&#39;t HATE Phantom Menace and so I&#39;m hanging out for Clones. I&#39;m not a comic person, so Spiderman isn&#39;t overly appealing to me (and, quite frankly, it doesn&#39;t look really wonderful) but I will see it when it finally comes out here in Australia because I liked X-Men alot and I like Maguire heaps. I haven&#39;t read the Potter books (I really should get around to) but I really enjoyed the movie. I laughed alot, everything was so novel. And that Quiddich captain was really cute. IT WAS NOT THE BEST KIDS MOVIE I&#39;VE SEEN, BUT THAT&#39;S OK. I will see the second one and I will read the books and I will probably enjoy them. Now, Lord of the Rings. I loved Fellowship as much as I love A New Hope, but for different reasons. I don&#39;t know, but there was something about seeing those classic characters being so perfectly cast (and they really were, just watch Sean Austin, who will make the trilogy) that sent shivers down my spine. I&#39;m sooooo looking forward to December, and not because of Christmas. Despite all this however, my real anticipation is not for any of these movies. I know, it&#39;s wrong, but I&#39;m most looking forward to...wait for it...SIGNS. Of all the movies to be wetting myself over, I know. It just looks sooo fantastic. M. Night Shyamalan, Joaquin Phoenix and kids who can act. Yeah baby, bring it on. Now, is all of that okay with you guys? Gee I hope so. I sure do want your approval. Judge me, go on!! Rant over.

  • May 12, 2002, 4:47 a.m. CST

    yeah, comparing spiderman to harry potter was my first instinct

    by TheGinger Twit


  • May 12, 2002, 8:52 a.m. CST


    by Mr_Nobody

    And as i already stated, i wasn&#39;t there when Star Wars opened so i can&#39;t definitively back up my arguments. and of course Star Wars is popular...hell, Lucas was inspired by the early morning serials which were inherently definied by pop culture. once again, always finding my weak points. ok, so u would agree that comic books are inherently cultish yet find it ironic that i would call Spider-man a cult classic?? aye, spot on mate! yet saying that...Spider-man is an American icon, as are Superman and Batman who are also cult heroes. but yes, i would still consider Spider-man and Star Wars cultish because of the differing nature of the fans. both are extremely popular, yet cultish because of the small followings that hunt down every bit of information and decry every change to the original. basically i&#39;m defining cults as i would geeks...and thats a pretty weak line to draw, i agree. Of course Tolkien has a great deal of attention whilst he was writing LOTR and while it became immensely popular, and popular only in the sense that the population read it and then put it away. LOTR was in part cultish simply because of who picked it up as their students who embraced it completely, that i would consider cultish. there&#39;s no way i could deceive myself that is was only this small group that took up LOTR...but in part, they were responsible for its immense popularity and devotion. no, everything that is popular does not inherently suck. but lets be honest, the majority of people are stupid, or at the very least...ill-informed and tragically maleable. and in that, i think we should seriously consider why things become so popular. ummm...Titanic, Spice Girls, the Macarena, boy bands...the list goes on and on. i didn&#39;t like Harry Potter the movie because of its merits, well lackthereof, as a movie. certainly not because it was so popular. and i know it isn&#39;t rocket science u ignorant jackass...and if u had considered to read the entirety of my little rant instead of just nitpicking a few of my thoughts, u would have clearly seen that i stated that the primary reason HP was such a big was *because* of the overwhelming popularity of the books. and yes, would completely agree that my ability to knock its staying power is negated by my having not read HP. yet as u say, i&#39;ll give my opinion whether its wanted or not. and as with most ridiculously popular things, Harry Potter will fade and soon wither. and its been around for a number of years? yeah, a number is right...its not even been 3 years since the first came out!! yeah...i see this waning really quickly. and how u can compare HP to Shakespeare or LOTR i don&#39;t know. its tough to judge a movie or a book purely on its own merits when everybody and their uncle likes it. u have to it really that good, or it is really that bad?

  • May 12, 2002, 9:04 a.m. CST

    pop culture sure as hell can be tho

    by Mr_Nobody

    Ok, the fact that u just named LOTR as an example of pop culture completely blows my mind. anyway...aye, kids books don&#39;t have to be brilliant works to entertain the kids and even simple-minded adults (flame on!). yet if one hopes that they shall last...they better be. take for instance, Roald Dahl, once of the greatest children&#39;s writers of all time. no, nothing brilliant in his writing...but there is something magical there for kids and adults. thats what makes books more than pop culture and therefore long lasting. i&#39;m not off my high horse mate...heh, too short to get on one in the first place. and actually, i think it really is ironic that Rowling and co. wouldn&#39;t allow Columbus to deviate from the source material. maybe thats why the movie was terrible...the source material is just that bad.

  • May 12, 2002, 10:19 a.m. CST

    I hate to stoop to this level, but . . .

    by Rain_Dog

    Someone with as poor a grasp of the English language as you have demonstrated really shouldn&#39;t be calling me simple-minded. Here&#39;s the deal: I believe the HP books DO have that elusive &#39;magic&#39; quality you seem to have found them lacking in despite not having read them. I&#39;m not even going to go into how ridiculous that makes you look. But ultimately, that &#39;magic&#39; is why they struck a chord with kids the world over. Bear in mind that they did so even before the marketing machine kicked into overdrive. And yes, Lord of the Rings IS popular culture. If it&#39;s your idea of high art, if it is your personal paragon of literary achievement, then I feel genuinely sorry for you. It appeared in the post-modern era and is one of the highest selling books in the history of book-selling; it is loved by afficionados of fantasy as well as those of &#39;legitimate&#39; literature. This slots it firmly into the public consciousness, and thus makes it popular culture. Like I said, popular culture is not a negative term, despite the fact that you seem to have decided, in your clearly infinite wisdom, that it is. What you mean by popular culture is, in fact, what is called mass culture by most social theorists. As a final insult to both my intelligence and yours, you completely missed the irony I was trying to point out. Don&#39;t think just because you can spell &#39;deviate&#39; all by yourself I&#39;m suddenly going to say "Damn, he got me with that last nonsensical, idiotic comment. I guess I was wrong the whole time." The only conclusion I am able to draw is that you are, as I initially stated, a fuckwit. I will no longer be dignifying your posts with a response.

  • May 12, 2002, 10:32 a.m. CST

    Oh, what the hell. This guy has pissed me off SO MUCH.

    by Rain_Dog

    You haven&#39;t read the books. YOU HAVEN&#39;T READ THE BOOKS!?!?!? And yet you feel qualified to say they don&#39;t measure up to Roald Dahl. Why should I even believe you&#39;ve read Dahl? What on earth, other than an inflated sense of the importance and accuracy of your cockamamy opinions, gives you the right to pass such categorical judgment over something you haven&#39;t read? Your last comment is so patently ridiculous I didn&#39;t know whether to laugh or slit my wrists in a warm bathtub. There is no way on God&#39;s clean earth you could possibly be serious in saying the source material is so bad they should&#39;ve changed it for the film. Why? CAUSE YOU HAVEN&#39;T READ THE BOOKS, YOU IGNORAMUS!!! Jesus Christ, I&#39;m going to have to go and take some really strong sedatives just so I don&#39;t spend the night dreaming of ways to insult you. Once again, and I mean it this time, I&#39;m not going to dignify your response to my response with a response. This is mainly because you&#39;ll probably respond to my posts without reading them. Idiot. By the way, if you insult my taste in literature one more time, I&#39;m going to beat you to death with my Norman Mailer omnibus and my complete works of Oscar Wilde. I firmly believe in civilised debate, but I also believe, like Mailer, that some people just need to be punched repeatedly.

  • May 12, 2002, 12:33 p.m. CST

    oh....sooo exciting

    by Mr_Nobody

    Poor grasp on the English language? whatever mate, to each his own. and i know its ridiculous to expound upon my theories about why i think a book is terrible without ever having read the bloody things. hell...u might even cause me to read them, just to see how i truly react. no, laughable that i might ever consider LOTR as my "personal paragon of literary achievement". i would agree mate, anyone who would say that is somewhat pitiful considering the plethora of good writing that is out there. LOTR, however, i would still consider to be the most *enjoyable* piece of fiction i&#39;ve ever read. perhaps that is a contradiction in terms, but we all know that pacing and sentence structure was never Tolkien&#39;s strong suit...and i think there is some credence is being able to separate enjoyment and appreciation for art created, even if they may unite at times. as u define popular culture, i cannot but agree with u that LOTR is therefore a part of pop culture. and once again, agree that i am mixing the terms of mass and popular culture...yet i&#39;ve come to an understanding that the two are at time inseperable. now perhaps this is foolish thinking on my part, yet is not the mass culture inherently linking with the popular culture? as i say...perhaps just foolish thinking on my part. and mate...i got the irony sadly u missed mine, underneath the obvious, blantant irony above it. sadly, i think we&#39;re misfiring a bit. believe me, i&#39;m not trying to sound like a fuckwit...just influenced by so many of them, i might be sounding like it by accident...or maybe its just natural ;-) i&#39;ll be honest concerning Harry Potter...thrice i&#39;ve started the things, and never gotten past the first few pages. this was all after i saw the movie. basically i couldn&#39;t understand that a movie that was so bad could be spawned by a book "everybody" loved so much. jaded a bit i think...i didn&#39;t want to like it, so i didn&#39;t take the risk in reading it. ah...such indepth reasoning, who do i charge for the psychoanalysis?? there&#39;s an inflated sense of importance in my writing? if there is mate, i don&#39;t mean it to be there...if i sound like a cocky little bastard (which i&#39;m sure i do considering i&#39;ve been slamming a book i&#39;ve never read), i apologize. yet don&#39;t Danny and his peasants from me...i need my author whose nose isn&#39;t a nose. u act like u&#39;re telling me something i don&#39;t know...i&#39;ve not read the damn things, and hadn&#39;t planned on trying again. listen jackass. even if i argue badly (which i usually do, i&#39;m sure u&#39;ll agree), i do it addressing anything that was levelled at me. hate the little pricks that focus on one bit of an argument...ignoring everything else. i may be nonsensical, but i&#39;ll do it thoroughly! (do u see the irony/humor, do u see it??) listen, i respect what u said...especially considering i&#39;m now wanting to read HP (damn my mouth!!). and hell...i&#39;ll even retract that, rather insensitive, insult of ur taste in literature until i read HP...then i&#39;ll hope u accept my insults and we can be friends...and watch the lion play with the lamb. if u&#39;re going to have the gall to try and cut me with the light and airy works of Wilde (omnibus of Mailer? nice), let me at least try and combat those soft abrasions with a nice dose of Rousseau to sweeten u up and then to end u quickly, a double helping of Lu Xun and Kojima Nobuo. because i&#39;ve learned from Lu Xu that the best way to deal with so many imbeciles is to devour them completely...just with plenty of toothpicks handy! --and just so u *understand*, not calling u an imbecile...just seemingly everyone else...u know...the masses...the populace.

  • May 12, 2002, 12:34 p.m. CST

    bloody hell!

    by Mr_Nobody

    i hate these forums! that post is in here somewhere...bastards.

  • May 12, 2002, 3:17 p.m. CST

    Well Mr Nobody...

    by LairyFights

    I only have one thing to say. By your own definition, Harry Potter is a cult phenomenon. (LOL!) Obviously, you are as completely clueless of HP fans as much as you are of the books. There are legions of HP fans out there who pore over the most minute details of the books. From the hotly debated question of whether it will be a classic, to the parallels of WWII, to analyzing the characters&#39; names in an effort to find out their true nature, ie. whether they will turn to the dark side. I could go on and on because the books are full of intricate details that have been picked apart and analyzed to death by geeks like me. Yes, and there are lots more like me. muwahahaha! ****I don&#39;t know if you were trying to insult me with the "Fairie Knights" but my name is from the 4th HP book where a drunk lady in a painting mispronounces the password, Fairy Lights. It&#39;s all in the details. :-)

  • May 12, 2002, 3:23 p.m. CST

    what does that boy wizard with the funny glasses have in common

    by piss and moan

    I tried posting this earlier but I don&#39;t think it went through. I apologize if this is a double post. There is a very good reason why the opening weekend of Spiderman has made more money than Harry Potter and the Sorceror&#39;s Stone that has NOTHING to do with the films&#39; relative quality: HP was aimed at a yoounger audience. Most of the audience members were preteenage kids. Even if they didn&#39;t see the film at a matinee, most of those under twelve paid several bucks less than an adult would have to see the film. Most of the audience who saw Spiderman were teens and adults who paid full price. To which I add, so what? The aesthetic quality of a film of any art form, is separate from its economic value. And aesthetic values, including beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. I also think the durability of Harry Potter is dependent on the books, not the movies. If you cannot enjoy HP books or movies, then this is a phenomenon that is not meant for you. There are many popular books and movies that I don&#39;t "get" either. Including some classics. The first HP movie was disappointing, and I wish Terry Gilliam had been chosen to direct these films--THAT would have been incredible!--and incidentally, the film of Gilliam&#39;s considered his best, Brazil, is the only film of his I don&#39;t care for, despite amazing visuals. As I said, in the eye of the beholder. Someday someone will film the definitive version of these stories. Harry, READ THE BOOKS! You are missing something by not reading them. Voldemort is one of the great villains in fantasy, ranking with Saruman and Lord Foul (provided that JKR doesn&#39;t falter in the remaining books) There is a scene in GoF in which Vordemort is resurrected and Harry is about to be sacrificed (sorry for the spoiler) that would make Stephen King or Clive Barker proud. The whole source of evil is a Nazi-like ideology. They are kid&#39;s books, but to as Clive Staples Lewis once observed, the best child&#39;s literature appeals to adults as well. (I&#39;m sure someone here has the exact quotation). The books have a lot that adults can enjoy, in the same way they can enjoy The Hobbit, Peter Pan, Pinocchio, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. There is a lot in these books that rise to satire that would be above the heads of most children, as there are in those other books. As for it being derivative, so was LOTR, so was Shakespeare, so were the ancient Greek Myths. Everything since and including Gilmagash has been derivative. Interestingly, JK Rowling has said her biggest inspirations were Tolkien and Lewis! Mr. Nobody, the esteemed liteary critic Edmund Wilson predicted that LOTR would have no staying power, and it&#39;s appeal was due to people having a "lifelong appetite for juvenile trash". (sound familiar?) Wilson was wrong about LOTR, and only time will tell if you or anyone is right about HP, but I know this: Mr. Nobody, I have read Edmund Wilson, I agree and disagree with Edmund Wilson, and you are no Edmund Wilson. Wilson at least read what he criticized. YOu are like those shills who praise movies they never see because they are paid by the studios. Are you an employee of Random House or Simon and Schuster by any chance? Keep in mind what Goethe once said: "Glitter is coined to fit the moment&#39;s rage; the genuine will last from age to age." Only history, not Harry Knowles, not Mr. Nobody, not anyone here, certainly not me, will determine whether HP is glitter or the genuine article. I suspect Harry Potter will live on in the company of Oliver Twist, Jim Hawkins, Tom Sawyer, Dorothy Gale, Pippi Longstockings and Peter Parker.

  • May 12, 2002, 4:48 p.m. CST

    by HeeHeeHee

    I found first book mildly enjoyable, and the movie "so-so." I have yet to read the rest of the series because, well, I have many other books I&#39;d rather read first. I&#39;d have to say that Roald Dahl, CS Lewis, Madeleine L&#39;engle, Brian Jacques [maybe], & JRR Tolkien (in _The Hobbit_) are probably superior children&#39;s authors, but JK Rowling is decent. If you really want some good [all-growed-up] fantasy, go read _The King of Elfland&#39;s Daughter_ by Lord Dunsany, _Invisible Cities_ by Italo Calvino, _Ficciones_ by Jorge Luis Borges, _One Hundred Years of Solitude_ by Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, or _Little, Big_ by John Crowley. Stay away from authors who intentionally write long, drawn-out serieses. And that&#39;s my advice for the day.

  • May 12, 2002, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Let&#39;s Try This One More Time

    by HeeHeeHee

    I thought both the first book and the first movie were decent but I&#39;ve yet to read the rest of the series. Why? Because I have other books I&#39;d rather read right now. About two dozen other books, I&#39;d say. I personally think that Roald Dahl, Madeleine L&#39;Engle, CS Lewis, possibly Brian Jacques, and Tolkine (in the Hobbit) are superior children&#39;s authors in comparison to JK Rowling. I also think that you all should perhaps try some adult fantasy (well, sort of fantasy), as well. Try _Ficciones_ by Jorge Luis Borges, _King of Elfland&#39;s Daughter_ by Lord Dunsany, _Invisible Cities_ by Italo Calvino, _Hardboiled Wonderland and the End of the World_ by Haruki Murakami, _One Hundred Years of Solitude_ by Gabriel Garcia-Marquez (the border between Magic Realism and Fantasy is slim, in my humble opinion), and _Little, Big_ by John Crowley. Ignore bloated paperbacks, intentionally long serieses, and anything involving the words, "Epic" or "High Fantasy." If you MUST read some hack-and-slash stuff, go find Fritz Leiber or Robert E. Howard. They&#39;re fun. And that&#39;s my advice for the day.

  • May 12, 2002, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Let&#39;s Try This One More Time

    by HeeHeeHee

    I thought both the first book and the first movie were decent but I&#39;ve yet to read the rest of the series. Why? Because I have other books I&#39;d rather read right now. About two dozen other books, I&#39;d say. I personally think that Roald Dahl, Madeleine L&#39;Engle, CS Lewis, possibly Brian Jacques, and Tolkine (in the Hobbit) are superior children&#39;s authors in comparison to JK Rowling. I also think that you all should perhaps try some adult fantasy (well, sort of fantasy), as well. Try _Ficciones_ by Jorge Luis Borges, _King of Elfland&#39;s Daughter_ by Lord Dunsany, _Invisible Cities_ by Italo Calvino, _Hardboiled Wonderland and the End of the World_ by Haruki Murakami, _One Hundred Years of Solitude_ by Gabriel Garcia-Marquez (the border between Magic Realism and Fantasy is slim, in my humble opinion), and _Little, Big_ by John Crowley. Ignore bloated paperbacks, intentionally long serieses, and anything involving the words, "Epic" or "High Fantasy." If you MUST read some hack-and-slash stuff, go find Fritz Leiber or Robert E. Howard. They&#39;re fun. And that&#39;s my advice for the day.

  • May 12, 2002, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Let&#39;s Try This One More Time

    by HeeHeeHee

    I thought both the first book and the first movie were decent but I&#39;ve yet to read the rest of the series. Why? Because I have other books I&#39;d rather read right now. About two dozen other books, I&#39;d say. I personally think that Roald Dahl, Madeleine L&#39;Engle, CS Lewis, possibly Brian Jacques, and Tolkine (in the Hobbit) are superior children&#39;s authors in comparison to JK Rowling. I also think that you all should perhaps try some adult fantasy (well, sort of fantasy), as well. Try _Ficciones_ by Jorge Luis Borges, _King of Elfland&#39;s Daughter_ by Lord Dunsany, _Invisible Cities_ by Italo Calvino, _Hardboiled Wonderland and the End of the World_ by Haruki Murakami, _One Hundred Years of Solitude_ by Gabriel Garcia-Marquez (the border between Magic Realism and Fantasy is slim, in my humble opinion), and _Little, Big_ by John Crowley. Ignore bloated paperbacks, intentionally long serieses, and anything involving the words, "Epic" or "High Fantasy." If you MUST read some hack-and-slash stuff, go find Fritz Leiber or Robert E. Howard. They&#39;re fun. And that&#39;s my advice for the day.

  • May 12, 2002, 5:37 p.m. CST


    by steve_zodiac

    So why not cast Jake Lloyd in the part?

  • May 12, 2002, 8:28 p.m. CST

    I&#39;m gonna get lynched for this, but...

    by Billy Talent

    Am I the only one who thinks &#39;Harry Potter&#39; (books and movie) is way more entertaining and inventive than Tolkien&#39;s and Jackson&#39;s ponderous, florid and joyless &#39;epic&#39;? I&#39;d have to say that Rowling is just about the best popular novelist around these days. Our grand kids will be reading &#39;Harry Potter&#39;.

  • May 12, 2002, 11:37 p.m. CST

    Hey Rain Dog!

    by HollyS

    Unfortunately there will be some who will judge a book by its movie. Trust me sometimes even triyng to talk some sence doesnt help. Take a nice hot bath and please dont slit your wrist! Just lean back and relax. Anyway which Harry Potter book did you like? Do you think the second movie will be done better? I hope so!

  • May 13, 2002, 1:21 a.m. CST


    by X7thsamuraiX

    First off, give me a break!! Stop acting like a bunch of snobs talking down to a pack of savages. You shouldnt be condeming each other for what type of books you like to read, if anything you should get down on people who dont read. Everyone you meet, share and encourage reading with them. Give them what you read, take an interest in what they like. Communicate, discuss, just be open minded about it. Personally, i have read all four of the Harry Potter books and can honestly say I enjoyed them. After spending a month reading Dante, More, and Tolken, my brain needed to relax and try some light reading. Afriend recommended Potter so I bought the first two and it was just what I needed. Light and entertaining, just what my brain needed to relax while still be able to continue reading. I read as much and anything I can get my hands on: comics, novels, play, essays, poetry, magazines, as much as possible. While some of what I read is certainly above other works ive read, I try to make no judgements. All written work has some merit in one way or the other. Same with movies. Of course I am still trying to figure out what merit MK2 had, but that&#39;s just me. Anyway I have read quite a few of Harry&#39;s reviews in the past few years and while he can be childish sometimes, he has some brains. so in that train of though, I would say to Harry to at least give the one or two of the Potter books a look at. By the way i breezed throught the first book in less than 3 hours, so it isn&#39;t that big of a committment. As for the pop culture comment, I have only one thing to say bout that. Not reading or seeing something because it is &#39;popular&#39; is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. You can&#39;t say people are fools or robots that are folowing a fad merely because a great number of people seem to enjoy something. Are you not the same kind of robot by not following the rest merely because everyone is? Just &#39;rebeling&#39; from something is not enough when there is no reason besides just not going with the flow. You want to be a counter culture rebel then know something about culture first. Going with the flow or not going with the flow based on what everyone else is doing is stupid and pointless. You are reacting to other people&#39;s opinions rather than what the opinions are based on. LOTR was one of the best films I have seen in a long time but the books I did not care for much at all. Boring, dull and flat. The movie was so much better because it put heart into the story that Tolkien did not. Look at all the info and detail the movie had. where was it in the books? Mostly in 80 pages of appendixes included after the trilogy of the edition I have. Big difference, a very big difference. Oh and last time I checked Potter&#39;s grosses were slightly higher than LOTR and LOTR has had a longer theater run, but hey these figure are subject to change so who knows, I may not be right anymore. Besides grosses aren&#39;t important. How many of our favorite movies out are low budget and how many cult favorites bomved at the box office. Army of Darkness anyone?Spidey was a good film and well worth seeing, but don&#39;t compare a comic superhero to a child wizard. Although both have suffered abit in their losses. Oh and Harry and the rest get older in every story so the actor&#39;s playing them will not out grow them. So don&#39;t be a mindless robot and make up your own minds about everything. I love movies, all of them. Some are fantastic, others I could care less about. You are all the same way, but keep in mind to based the like and hate on your own thoughts, perspective and view, not everyone else&#39;s. Dont feel ashamed about reading Harry Potter or comics or whatever, read because you enjoy the experience each bring to you and share it. Well, enough of this sermon. time to go get drunk and pass out heh. Peace to all

  • May 13, 2002, 2:44 a.m. CST

    Samurai and Holly

    by Rain_Dog

    Thanks for the moral support, Holly. My wrist-slitting comment was purely figurative. I was just trying to convey the indescribable level of frustration I had with that Mr. Nobody chap. I liked all the HP books, but I thought CoS was probably the weakest link. I think what I liked most about the books was the fact the Rowling, like all good authors of children&#39;s fiction, speaks to the children, not down to them Like Where the Wild Things Are, which was one of my favourite books growing up; it spoke to kids on a sort of primal level they could dig. Even now the dark and anarchic nature of it mean I&#39;ll always hold it in high regard. Does this make me &#39;simple-minded&#39;, in Mr. Nobody&#39;s words? Hell no, unless my love for Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac are simple-minded too. Hopefully the second HP movie will be an improvement, as there&#39;s less exposition-type stuff to get through, but I have to confess I don&#39;t have a great deal of faith in Chris Columbus. Samurai X fella, you&#39;re completely right. My last posts may have come off as a bit arrogant or snobbish, but really I was trying to convey the same thing as you; all pieces of art, or pop-cultural artefacts, have their own merit (well, maybe not the whole boy band phenomena. Even I have to draw the line somewhere), and there&#39;s no point in calling a someone a fool if they enjoyed something you happen to dislike (or happen to have prejudged in Mr. Nobody&#39;s case). There&#39;s even less point on dismissing something based solely on its popularity, or lack thereof. There&#39;s nothing wrong with discoursing about the relative merits of different works, but there&#39;s no point in categorically saying "You&#39;re a simple minded fool if you like Harry Potter." It just happens that I tend to resort to fairly grotesque intellectual snobbery when dealing with jackasses like Mr. Nobody.

  • May 13, 2002, 8:59 p.m. CST

    Peace Settlement

    by Rain_Dog

    Yeah, I should apologise for my barrage of insults too, really. The anonymity of web forums sometimes pushes over the edge into megalomania. You&#39;re right to a degree about the lines blurring between mass and popular culture, but its not so much about the two being interchangeable as there being a constant interchange between the two, if that makes sense. Popular culture becomes mass culture as it gains mass acceptance, and mass cultural artefacts, over the years, become pop culture as they lose their universal audience and become &#39;culty&#39;. Now, I have to confess I had a trouble getting into the HP books to begin with. I started &#39;Philosophers Stone&#39; three times before it clicked, but after that I read all four books in a weekend. Maybe it&#39;ll be the same for you, maybe not. Give them a try though; you might be surprised. RE: my Mailer omnibus, I&#39;m not sure if omnibus was the write word, but I was angry at the time. It&#39;s called the Time of Our Time, a collected writings thing, with articles, interviews, reviews, and lengthy excerpts from his major works of fiction and non-fiction. Good book to keep next to the bed or the can. You can dip in at random and experience the wisdom of Norman.

  • May 14, 2002, 11:19 a.m. CST

    to Mr_Nobody re: pop culture

    by pedant

    You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • May 14, 2002, 11:33 a.m. CST

    For those just tuning in...

    by CaptEgo

    To Summarize: Group 1: Woof, woof, Snarl! Snarl! Group 2: Meow...Hssst! Fftt! Group 1: Grrrr....Woof, woof...Aroooo! Group 2: Raaawwrrr! Hasst! Fttt! Fttt! <In the Duckblind> Zzzzzzzzz....

  • May 14, 2002, 12:27 p.m. CST

    False dichotomy

    by pedant

    Lots of people have been trying to make a distinction between "high art" and popular culture... such a distinction might have been possible at one time in history, but this is no longer the case. A work can be one or the other, or both, or neither. Warhol, Duchamp, et al. were noted for turning pop/mass culture into high art, and on the other side of the coin, you have iconic images from great works of art seeping into popular culture... consider the Mona Lisa, the opening motive of Beethoven&#39;s 5th, Van Gogh&#39;s Starry Night, the intro to Richard Strauss&#39;s Also Sprach Zarathustra, Dal