I was reading the paper about a week ago and some guy was writing in to complain about a poor game of football or something somewhere which really annoyed him. He was really annoyed because one team had won, they had scored only one try but they had got a conversion, I think some other points from things that were like whatevers, field goals or special kicks or whatever the terminology in this particular game was. I'm afraid I don't know too much about the game to explain.
The thing is, the other team had got more tries and LOST. I don't think the margin was great but they lost.
And it really annoyed the man and he thought it was a stupid game and really, it took all the fun out it and just was boring and not worth watching.
This brings me to the well-known Rowling-invented, Harry Potter game of Quidditch which I'm afraid I just don't understand and maybe someone can explain it to me.
Apparently it's a riveting game and everyone loves it, everyone magical that is, so there must be something to it, or could wizards and witches just have terrible taste?
But basically it involves two teams and and they beat balls into goals and get ten points per goal, with a defence goalies on each side too, that makes sense.
The bit that doesn't make sense is The Golden Snitch, which is worth 150 points of caught, and ends the game. Apparently it is the only thing that ends the game.
Now, given that the catching of The Golden Snitch is worth 15 goals, it makes sense that you have to get 16 goals to make it worth your team not catching the Snitch. That seems to me quite a few.
Here's some questions:
a) If you were a Beater, or in fact anyone other than a Seeker (the guy/gal who goes after the Golden Snitch), wouldn't you feel a bit useless on the team?
b) If you were the team Captain, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to spend more time just working out strategy that involved sabotaging the other team's Seeker's efforts so your team's Seeker could get to the Snitch fastest, rather than bothering with trying to score goals?
c) Since the Snitch is worth 150 points AND ends the game, not only does it make sense to make the Snitch a priority, but wouldn't it also make sense to work out some kind of signal system so that if your team is trailing by more than 150 points, your Seeker doesn't actually catch the Snitch, but instead puts his/her efforts into stopping the other Seeker from catching it? And that you only actually catch it when you are winning or are less than 150 points behind?
How come there are games when someone has caught the Snitch but they've lost anyway, you'd think professionals would do better than that!
I think I am really missing something. I would be very grateful if someone could explain what all the fuss about Quidditch was. Since the Seeker was so powerful in relation to everything else, disproportionately so, I felt it actually took away from the game. It lacked real suspense and drama.
At any rate I'm sorry but I could never get that excited about Quidditch, I guess I am too nerdy to even be really into sports :)
Showing posts with label harry potter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label harry potter. Show all posts
Sunday, 16 August 2009
Monday, 27 July 2009
Keeping the Potter Franchise Alive
It seemed Harry Potter ended with The Deathly Hallows, but then out came Tales of Beedle the Bard.
Now, I'm sure many Potterheads would like to see Harry live on and what better way than to besiege Rowling with ideas for spin-offs, sequels and prequels and beg her to continue to keep Harry alive?
A fellow blogger has compiled a set of "totally original" Potter story continuations. I'm sure you'll agree that any of these would make viable books, and would be extremely filmable.
Perhaps an intense Potter martial arts version could be released.
Something like ...
Harry, Ginny, Ron and Hermione are travelling in the mountains when they are beset upon by some Oriental Muggles. Despite their magical powers, all four are captured. It seems a Jackie Chan backflip can overpower someone on a broomstick any day.
Taken back to the little village, the Muggles kindly bathe the wounds of the four and lend them robes to wear as their wizarding robes were torn in battle. The four are forced to live in the little village and gradually come to respect the strange rites of the Muggles. Ron annoys Hermione by falling for a good looking slim Asian chick, but after a while she gets so involved in learning fourteen different Asian dialects all at once that she forgets Ron's being an idiot.
It comes to light that the Muggles hadn't meant any harm to the four. Furthermore they begin to initiate each into how to use a different Oriental weapon, and appoint Harry as the leader and give him a blue bandanna. Ron gets a yellow one and Hermione is given a purple one and Ginny a red one. These will help distinguish them, and they ask that they help them in times of war as their last true Ninja warrior is dying and ...
Damn, I'm not sure if I should call this "Harry Potter and The Last Ninja" or "Teenage Mutant Ninja Wizards".
I'll come up with an ending later. Surely.
Now, I'm sure many Potterheads would like to see Harry live on and what better way than to besiege Rowling with ideas for spin-offs, sequels and prequels and beg her to continue to keep Harry alive?
A fellow blogger has compiled a set of "totally original" Potter story continuations. I'm sure you'll agree that any of these would make viable books, and would be extremely filmable.
Perhaps an intense Potter martial arts version could be released.
Something like ...
Harry, Ginny, Ron and Hermione are travelling in the mountains when they are beset upon by some Oriental Muggles. Despite their magical powers, all four are captured. It seems a Jackie Chan backflip can overpower someone on a broomstick any day.
Taken back to the little village, the Muggles kindly bathe the wounds of the four and lend them robes to wear as their wizarding robes were torn in battle. The four are forced to live in the little village and gradually come to respect the strange rites of the Muggles. Ron annoys Hermione by falling for a good looking slim Asian chick, but after a while she gets so involved in learning fourteen different Asian dialects all at once that she forgets Ron's being an idiot.
It comes to light that the Muggles hadn't meant any harm to the four. Furthermore they begin to initiate each into how to use a different Oriental weapon, and appoint Harry as the leader and give him a blue bandanna. Ron gets a yellow one and Hermione is given a purple one and Ginny a red one. These will help distinguish them, and they ask that they help them in times of war as their last true Ninja warrior is dying and ...
Damn, I'm not sure if I should call this "Harry Potter and The Last Ninja" or "Teenage Mutant Ninja Wizards".
I'll come up with an ending later. Surely.
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Why the Half-Blood Prince?
Yesterday I went to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
I liked the movie, I definitely thought it was much better done then The Order of the Phoenix which was the last Harry Potter Book and my least favourite adaptation. This had a good mix of humour, action, and special effects and I thought was well acted.
Now, as is my habit, I went to IMDB and had a look at others' comments. Some, like me, loved it, others, mainly Potter junkies, hated it, and made catalogues of what had been cut or changed in the film. Mainly what had been cut (usually prefacing by saying they knew a movie had to cut a little but did it have to cut this much?)
In my opinion, well, the Potter books are long so if you want to cut it to a reasonable length, and still have detail in effects in some scenes, you're going to have to sometimes cut whole plot sequences or themes out. And characters. Other possibilities are to make a longer film or series or to have superficial treatment of every part of the film.
Whether you agree with how it's cut up is subjective.
To me, it wasn't badly done, I didn't mind the hacking, but then I'm not a Potter junkie even though I enjoyed the books and movies.
Just one thing I did find a bit annoying.
The Half-Blood Prince is revealed in the movie (not surprisingly, towards the end ... whoops did I spoil that for anyone?) ... but the moment is brief and it's never explained WHY that person is called the Half-Blood Prince. In the book it's explained better. I mean, the title of the freaking movie is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, as well as figuring out who that person is, you'd figure they'd explain why 'Half-Blood' or what or power or meaning or whatever 'Half-Blood' has. Nope, nada. They might as well have called the person the Blodgybooga Prince.
I think that is one point the movie people should have fixed up, more important than the other stuff that people go on about missing because they thought it was cool or they would have loved to see it or they were personally attached to it, or they thought it was important for the next part of the movie. Even though it is not very exciting and is probably considered minor by many HP lovers. It would have only taken a couple of minutes. Heck, I left thinking if I didn't read the book, I'd be completely confused about the title of the movie!
Bah!
I liked the movie, I definitely thought it was much better done then The Order of the Phoenix which was the last Harry Potter Book and my least favourite adaptation. This had a good mix of humour, action, and special effects and I thought was well acted.
Now, as is my habit, I went to IMDB and had a look at others' comments. Some, like me, loved it, others, mainly Potter junkies, hated it, and made catalogues of what had been cut or changed in the film. Mainly what had been cut (usually prefacing by saying they knew a movie had to cut a little but did it have to cut this much?)
In my opinion, well, the Potter books are long so if you want to cut it to a reasonable length, and still have detail in effects in some scenes, you're going to have to sometimes cut whole plot sequences or themes out. And characters. Other possibilities are to make a longer film or series or to have superficial treatment of every part of the film.
Whether you agree with how it's cut up is subjective.
To me, it wasn't badly done, I didn't mind the hacking, but then I'm not a Potter junkie even though I enjoyed the books and movies.
Just one thing I did find a bit annoying.
The Half-Blood Prince is revealed in the movie (not surprisingly, towards the end ... whoops did I spoil that for anyone?) ... but the moment is brief and it's never explained WHY that person is called the Half-Blood Prince. In the book it's explained better. I mean, the title of the freaking movie is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, as well as figuring out who that person is, you'd figure they'd explain why 'Half-Blood' or what or power or meaning or whatever 'Half-Blood' has. Nope, nada. They might as well have called the person the Blodgybooga Prince.
I think that is one point the movie people should have fixed up, more important than the other stuff that people go on about missing because they thought it was cool or they would have loved to see it or they were personally attached to it, or they thought it was important for the next part of the movie. Even though it is not very exciting and is probably considered minor by many HP lovers. It would have only taken a couple of minutes. Heck, I left thinking if I didn't read the book, I'd be completely confused about the title of the movie!
Bah!
Wednesday, 24 December 2008
I am not a Harry Potter Wannabe!
After discussing various delightful books and my delight in them, I ventured to read an author (well, her books) recommended to me by TimT.
Eva Ibbotson. I started wth reading The Secret of Platform 13.
Now, the plot and characters are fairly simple - no deep soul searching or worldly messages much, but it's a fun ride, and extremely entertaining. I enjoyed it greatly and am keen to read more.
I decided to peep at Amazon.com to find what others had to say about Ms Ibbotson's book, and people were not surprisingly divided into camps of those who hated it and those who loved it.
But what was annoying was when I read many reviews, instead of spending much time wrting about the book, per se, many either sent time writing about how it was a Harry Potter wannabe book or like Harry Potter except not as good; or defending the book by saying it was better than or as good as Potter, or pointing out that it couldn't be a Potter wannabe as it was written befoer the Potter books were published, so the book is still honourable, so there, so there!
Now, I've heard some weird stories about manuscripts that land on publishers' desks that tout themselves as "the next Harry Potter crossed with the Da Vinci Code" - not exactly sure what the plotline for that book would be, but how does that happen befor Harry Potter and the Code even exist?
And nowadays, I'm so over reading about Potter everywhere, I couldn't care.
Does every kids' book have to be reviewed in terms of how it compares to Harry, even when the similarities are practically non-existent? Even if someone has been inspired by a bit of Harry-reading, unless it's outright plagiarism, who gives a damn? People get their inspiration from anywhere and everywhere. When they sit dwn to write, probably many don't even know where all their inspirations and influences actually come from.
Disclaimer: If I ever publish anything, the story is based on fictional events that took place anywhere but Hogwarts or Privet Drive. Unless it is based on non-fictional events that occurred anyplace but Hogwarts or at Privet Drive. But it definitely isn't based on Harry Potter events. Unless, errh, I disclaim otherwise. Uh, that's all, folks. For now.
Eva Ibbotson. I started wth reading The Secret of Platform 13.
Now, the plot and characters are fairly simple - no deep soul searching or worldly messages much, but it's a fun ride, and extremely entertaining. I enjoyed it greatly and am keen to read more.
I decided to peep at Amazon.com to find what others had to say about Ms Ibbotson's book, and people were not surprisingly divided into camps of those who hated it and those who loved it.
But what was annoying was when I read many reviews, instead of spending much time wrting about the book, per se, many either sent time writing about how it was a Harry Potter wannabe book or like Harry Potter except not as good; or defending the book by saying it was better than or as good as Potter, or pointing out that it couldn't be a Potter wannabe as it was written befoer the Potter books were published, so the book is still honourable, so there, so there!
Now, I've heard some weird stories about manuscripts that land on publishers' desks that tout themselves as "the next Harry Potter crossed with the Da Vinci Code" - not exactly sure what the plotline for that book would be, but how does that happen befor Harry Potter and the Code even exist?
And nowadays, I'm so over reading about Potter everywhere, I couldn't care.
Does every kids' book have to be reviewed in terms of how it compares to Harry, even when the similarities are practically non-existent? Even if someone has been inspired by a bit of Harry-reading, unless it's outright plagiarism, who gives a damn? People get their inspiration from anywhere and everywhere. When they sit dwn to write, probably many don't even know where all their inspirations and influences actually come from.
Disclaimer: If I ever publish anything, the story is based on fictional events that took place anywhere but Hogwarts or Privet Drive. Unless it is based on non-fictional events that occurred anyplace but Hogwarts or at Privet Drive. But it definitely isn't based on Harry Potter events. Unless, errh, I disclaim otherwise. Uh, that's all, folks. For now.
Thursday, 20 November 2008
Harry Potter - Series Comments and Recommendations!
I definitely recommend trying to have a go at this ne in Latin. You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll learn some exciting new words! If this series motivated kids to get up and read, imagine what it could do if it were on the compulsory Latin syllabus.
We may have a whole generation of Classics trained, pagan tudents whose first recollections of Latin are not "amo amas amat" or "cerberus est canis" but "Puer qui vixit!" and "Dominus et Domina Dursley".
Harry Potter, for me, was an enjoyable series and I don't regret at all reading it. It was a fast read despite the heftiness of some of the tomes. However, I don't think it will be the kind of series I will go back to over and over.
It started off rather tamely and then suddenly turned into a much more "advanced" series - with subplots, deaths, double entendres and also what seemed to be lots of unnecessary extra info. Not always for the better. While for me the more interesting books were near the end - I liked No.s 4 and 6 best (Goblet of Fire, Half-Blood Prince), I also thought the weakest book was the longest book- the Order of the Phoenix. I felt that a lot could be said for having tighter scripts - say in The Philosopher's Stone, which had a certain charm to them, rather than lashing out and going all over the place. Bigger is not always better!
I think I was one of the later people to get into all the Harry Potter stuff, and while I found them amusing, sometimes charming and entertaining, and imaginative, I was a bit mystified as to what the big deal was - after all, there are plenty of fantastic authors out there and in my opinion many just as good if not better than Rowling, many with wonderful, imaginative ideas, great characters blah blah - so what was so special about this that had kids lining up for this rather than others?
I really don't know. One fan (adult) who was obviously starstruck started gong on to me about how she thought it was because Rowling had "created a whole world" but then, plenty of fantasy writers do just that.
I've watched the first 5 movies. I've heard that the 7th book may be made into two movies because there is so much material; to be honest I don't know if I could be bothered watching two movies for that book, certainly I wouldn't buy two cinema tickets. I'd have to wait til it came out on TV til I watched it.
Anyhow, it was a good experience. Aaaaah!
We may have a whole generation of Classics trained, pagan tudents whose first recollections of Latin are not "amo amas amat" or "cerberus est canis" but "Puer qui vixit!" and "Dominus et Domina Dursley".
Harry Potter, for me, was an enjoyable series and I don't regret at all reading it. It was a fast read despite the heftiness of some of the tomes. However, I don't think it will be the kind of series I will go back to over and over.
It started off rather tamely and then suddenly turned into a much more "advanced" series - with subplots, deaths, double entendres and also what seemed to be lots of unnecessary extra info. Not always for the better. While for me the more interesting books were near the end - I liked No.s 4 and 6 best (Goblet of Fire, Half-Blood Prince), I also thought the weakest book was the longest book- the Order of the Phoenix. I felt that a lot could be said for having tighter scripts - say in The Philosopher's Stone, which had a certain charm to them, rather than lashing out and going all over the place. Bigger is not always better!
I think I was one of the later people to get into all the Harry Potter stuff, and while I found them amusing, sometimes charming and entertaining, and imaginative, I was a bit mystified as to what the big deal was - after all, there are plenty of fantastic authors out there and in my opinion many just as good if not better than Rowling, many with wonderful, imaginative ideas, great characters blah blah - so what was so special about this that had kids lining up for this rather than others?
I really don't know. One fan (adult) who was obviously starstruck started gong on to me about how she thought it was because Rowling had "created a whole world" but then, plenty of fantasy writers do just that.
I've watched the first 5 movies. I've heard that the 7th book may be made into two movies because there is so much material; to be honest I don't know if I could be bothered watching two movies for that book, certainly I wouldn't buy two cinema tickets. I'd have to wait til it came out on TV til I watched it.
Anyhow, it was a good experience. Aaaaah!
Harry Potter Awards - as given by OJS
Worst Film Adaptation Award - Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (far too sketchy - longest book, shortest movie!)
Most predictable ending - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Cheesiest Ending - Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - oh spare me, Gryffindor wins a whole lot of extra points and wins from behind?
The Award for Best Portrayed Defence of the Dark Arts Teacher on film (so far) - Dolores Umbridge by Imelda Staunton - in Order of the Phoenix
The Award for Best Hiding Place for Voldemort - back of Professor Quirrell's head - you really started off well.
The Award for Most Annoying, Perky Character - a toss-up between Gilderoy Lockhart and Rita Skeeter. If Oiliness is an added characteristic, Gilderoy wins.
The Award for Most Sadistic Concept - Harry Potter No. 5 - The Umbridge "I Must Not Tell Lies" Quill (When writing out lines in detention, the words etch themselves as if being carved into the back of Harry's hand with a knife. I think this is even worse than tying Ron up underwater and making Harry find him in Goblet of Fire)
Best Ghost Character - Moaning Myrtle - yes I preferred her to Nearly Headless Nick
Hogwarts teacher who reminds me most of my TAFE photography teacher - Professor Trelawney, by a long shot
Hogwarts subject I would take if I could choose - I'd love to know how to make Potions or be good at Transfiguration - and definitely, how to Fly a Broomstick, if I were studying witchcraft. They would be my top priority! I want to know how to turn a mouse into a pincushion!
Most predictable ending - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Cheesiest Ending - Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - oh spare me, Gryffindor wins a whole lot of extra points and wins from behind?
The Award for Best Portrayed Defence of the Dark Arts Teacher on film (so far) - Dolores Umbridge by Imelda Staunton - in Order of the Phoenix
The Award for Best Hiding Place for Voldemort - back of Professor Quirrell's head - you really started off well.
The Award for Most Annoying, Perky Character - a toss-up between Gilderoy Lockhart and Rita Skeeter. If Oiliness is an added characteristic, Gilderoy wins.
The Award for Most Sadistic Concept - Harry Potter No. 5 - The Umbridge "I Must Not Tell Lies" Quill (When writing out lines in detention, the words etch themselves as if being carved into the back of Harry's hand with a knife. I think this is even worse than tying Ron up underwater and making Harry find him in Goblet of Fire)
Best Ghost Character - Moaning Myrtle - yes I preferred her to Nearly Headless Nick
Hogwarts teacher who reminds me most of my TAFE photography teacher - Professor Trelawney, by a long shot
Hogwarts subject I would take if I could choose - I'd love to know how to make Potions or be good at Transfiguration - and definitely, how to Fly a Broomstick, if I were studying witchcraft. They would be my top priority! I want to know how to turn a mouse into a pincushion!
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
This book suffered from the old "cleaning up" syndrome that series often have - clean up loose ends, and you can feel that, somewhat to the detriment to the story.
For one thing, there's a whole lot of carnage. OK, they are fighting Lord Voldemort here; on the other hand Harry has fought Lord Voldemort in six previous books. In the first three books, he escaped without a single death, in the next three, one death at a time. Suddenly they are dying in spades in this one, almost like Rowling is cleaning characters out for springtime. One might argue that Voldemort has suddenly got really really strong but it just seems rather over the top, and gratuitous and unrealistic when compared to the lack of carnage in the other books.
Poor Hedwig! For some reason I felt more sorry about the loss of Hedwig than the others!
I LIKE owls!
I won't say too much about the plot, it's not too bad but it's not unusual either. As could be predicted, a magic mission which is completed, by Harry, with the aid of good friends. He finally learns of the allegiances of some of the greater characters in the series, defeats Voldemort and heaps of people get killed along the way.
This one didn't really grip me but I did want to find out what happened and it didn't bore me, which I can say is in it's favour. It wasn't one that could make me smile a lot or think "Oh, that was fun or imaginative" and that's what I rather like in children's fantasy.
But you end up having all the ends tied up for you, and for those who like plenty of action and want to know "what happened to whom" then this is good.
Note: There are notes on Wikipedia which say things about what happens to which main characters which include details that are not all in The Deathly Hallows, or not that I noted on my reading (maybe I didn't look closely enough). I suspect some of these details may have been released in J.K. Rowling's subsequent notes/interviews etc. For instance, details of the full names of people and their offspring and what they do with their lives after Hogwarts.
For one thing, there's a whole lot of carnage. OK, they are fighting Lord Voldemort here; on the other hand Harry has fought Lord Voldemort in six previous books. In the first three books, he escaped without a single death, in the next three, one death at a time. Suddenly they are dying in spades in this one, almost like Rowling is cleaning characters out for springtime. One might argue that Voldemort has suddenly got really really strong but it just seems rather over the top, and gratuitous and unrealistic when compared to the lack of carnage in the other books.
Poor Hedwig! For some reason I felt more sorry about the loss of Hedwig than the others!
I LIKE owls!
I won't say too much about the plot, it's not too bad but it's not unusual either. As could be predicted, a magic mission which is completed, by Harry, with the aid of good friends. He finally learns of the allegiances of some of the greater characters in the series, defeats Voldemort and heaps of people get killed along the way.
This one didn't really grip me but I did want to find out what happened and it didn't bore me, which I can say is in it's favour. It wasn't one that could make me smile a lot or think "Oh, that was fun or imaginative" and that's what I rather like in children's fantasy.
But you end up having all the ends tied up for you, and for those who like plenty of action and want to know "what happened to whom" then this is good.
Note: There are notes on Wikipedia which say things about what happens to which main characters which include details that are not all in The Deathly Hallows, or not that I noted on my reading (maybe I didn't look closely enough). I suspect some of these details may have been released in J.K. Rowling's subsequent notes/interviews etc. For instance, details of the full names of people and their offspring and what they do with their lives after Hogwarts.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
I liked this book. I rather did.
Despite my not being a huge Quidditch fan and despite this having a lot to do with Quidditch - Harry becomes Quidditch Captain in this one - I still thought this book had a lot more going for it than some of the others.
It had a nice sense of wonder and exploration in it - Harry's extra lessons with Dumbledore, Harry trying to figure out who the Half-Blood Prince was, with the certain darkness that comes with it - the impending footsteps of Draco Malfoy hot on his heels!
What I think this had in common with the Goblet of Fire was a good sense of pacing and a nice balance of light and dark. That's why it felt good.
Oh, and of course, anything with a bit more focus on Professor Snape - now that has to be a good thing. Professor Snape gets the job he has long coveted - Defence of the Dark Arts - and reveals quite a bit more of his background here - which all has to be good stuff!
This is also the one where Professor Dumbledore died. As did many readers, I likeed Dumbledore, but I felt his death almost inevitable - the martyr and older, wiser, heroic death. At least he went out the way he wanted to.
Despite my not being a huge Quidditch fan and despite this having a lot to do with Quidditch - Harry becomes Quidditch Captain in this one - I still thought this book had a lot more going for it than some of the others.
It had a nice sense of wonder and exploration in it - Harry's extra lessons with Dumbledore, Harry trying to figure out who the Half-Blood Prince was, with the certain darkness that comes with it - the impending footsteps of Draco Malfoy hot on his heels!
What I think this had in common with the Goblet of Fire was a good sense of pacing and a nice balance of light and dark. That's why it felt good.
Oh, and of course, anything with a bit more focus on Professor Snape - now that has to be a good thing. Professor Snape gets the job he has long coveted - Defence of the Dark Arts - and reveals quite a bit more of his background here - which all has to be good stuff!
This is also the one where Professor Dumbledore died. As did many readers, I likeed Dumbledore, but I felt his death almost inevitable - the martyr and older, wiser, heroic death. At least he went out the way he wanted to.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
I have two words for you:
Imelda Staunton
Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge in the movie adaptation of this book really makes this book, which is overly long and really not the best Harry Potter book in my opinion. However, Imelda Staunton goes a long way to redeeming it.
I believe she is the best portrayed of the ill-fated Defence of the Dark Arts teachers we've had in the movie versions so far, although in the upcoming Half-Blood Prince she may be well-challenged by Alan Rickman when Professor Snape takes the position. I do think Alan Rickman makes a fantastic Snapey ... oooh Professor Snape. Sorry, Dumbledore.
Staunton is admirable, but if you want a really good Staunton movie, go watch the movie adaptation of Gerald Durrell's My Family and Other Animals where she plays Mother. It's a much funnier, quirkier movie and the book is excellent too.
The first problem with the Order of the Phoenix is the book is really far too long, and even Rowling has admitted she could have trimmed it.
Also, the story isn't nearly as riveting.
OK, I liked some of the ideas. The whole take-off of bureacracy with Umbridge's silly self-constraining decrees (and the question whether this would mean she could actually stop people playing Exploding Snap in class because of her own decree), and the sadistic Umbridge quill was pretty good. And the side plotline of abuse of authority through prefects seemed to work too - even if it was a little overplayed.
Cho was wet and annoying, thank goodness Harry seemed to grasp this. And Neville grew up in this one - somthing good to see.
By the end of the book it was more like a trek than anything else - and the problem with the movie was it felt more like a sequence of sketches, rather than a really good, strong, well-developed storyline.
All in all - not a fave Harry Potter of mine and despite being the longest of the lot, one of the more forgettables, to me.
Imelda Staunton
Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge in the movie adaptation of this book really makes this book, which is overly long and really not the best Harry Potter book in my opinion. However, Imelda Staunton goes a long way to redeeming it.
I believe she is the best portrayed of the ill-fated Defence of the Dark Arts teachers we've had in the movie versions so far, although in the upcoming Half-Blood Prince she may be well-challenged by Alan Rickman when Professor Snape takes the position. I do think Alan Rickman makes a fantastic Snapey ... oooh Professor Snape. Sorry, Dumbledore.
Staunton is admirable, but if you want a really good Staunton movie, go watch the movie adaptation of Gerald Durrell's My Family and Other Animals where she plays Mother. It's a much funnier, quirkier movie and the book is excellent too.
The first problem with the Order of the Phoenix is the book is really far too long, and even Rowling has admitted she could have trimmed it.
Also, the story isn't nearly as riveting.
OK, I liked some of the ideas. The whole take-off of bureacracy with Umbridge's silly self-constraining decrees (and the question whether this would mean she could actually stop people playing Exploding Snap in class because of her own decree), and the sadistic Umbridge quill was pretty good. And the side plotline of abuse of authority through prefects seemed to work too - even if it was a little overplayed.
Cho was wet and annoying, thank goodness Harry seemed to grasp this. And Neville grew up in this one - somthing good to see.
By the end of the book it was more like a trek than anything else - and the problem with the movie was it felt more like a sequence of sketches, rather than a really good, strong, well-developed storyline.
All in all - not a fave Harry Potter of mine and despite being the longest of the lot, one of the more forgettables, to me.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Out of the Harry Potter movies, I think this is one of the better ones so far. I really rather liked the Philosopher's Stone as a good intro, but Goblet of Fire is probably second on my list. It's a good mixture of light and dark, and while it does cut out heaps from the book, it keeps in the right bits. In my opinion.
When we've got up to Goblet of Fire, Rowling started lashing out. No more Miss Nice Gal - or Miss Pretty Succinct Story Gal. She went the full hog. So the books had to be cut - a lot - for screen or end up with an epic like Ben Hur or Gone With the Wind just for one book.
Goblet of Fire is quite a fun book and it has some nice mixtures of dark and light. Of course there is the predictability - we know that Harry's name is going to come out of the Goblet despite the fact that he is restricted from enterinig the competition, so why bother stringing out the process?
The whole idea of the S.P.E.W. (Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare) was pretty amusing, though possibly a bit overdone. It was a good cultural satire of certain do-gooders who can turn others off, and who may believe they are doing good but are imposing their values on those they wish to help - a sort of "forcing them to be helped by my standards". It was probably wise to leave this secondary theme out of the movie but it was still a good plotline in the book.
As for Cho ... I cannot see what Harry sees in her! Harry shows terrible taste, fortunately he redeems himself later in the series by losing his infatuation. She's a giggly, egocentric, overemotional pain-in-the-butt.
The challenges in the Goblet of Fire are pretty good, satisfyingly dangerous and make for good reading. It's fairly obvious that Harry has been put in the challenge for evil reasons and You-Know-Who is behind the whole thing and Harry will triumph so three more books can be written. However, that doesn't diminish (as it never does in such books/movies) that it's really a great ride just finding out how he accomplishes each feat.
In this book, J.K. Rowling does start killing off characters. In this book it's a fairly minor character, but again, she's not playing Miss Nice Gal any more. In my opinion, the way it ended was "appropriate" and so was the choice of character ... not gratuitous ... and not cheesy. A better ending.
When we've got up to Goblet of Fire, Rowling started lashing out. No more Miss Nice Gal - or Miss Pretty Succinct Story Gal. She went the full hog. So the books had to be cut - a lot - for screen or end up with an epic like Ben Hur or Gone With the Wind just for one book.
Goblet of Fire is quite a fun book and it has some nice mixtures of dark and light. Of course there is the predictability - we know that Harry's name is going to come out of the Goblet despite the fact that he is restricted from enterinig the competition, so why bother stringing out the process?
The whole idea of the S.P.E.W. (Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare) was pretty amusing, though possibly a bit overdone. It was a good cultural satire of certain do-gooders who can turn others off, and who may believe they are doing good but are imposing their values on those they wish to help - a sort of "forcing them to be helped by my standards". It was probably wise to leave this secondary theme out of the movie but it was still a good plotline in the book.
As for Cho ... I cannot see what Harry sees in her! Harry shows terrible taste, fortunately he redeems himself later in the series by losing his infatuation. She's a giggly, egocentric, overemotional pain-in-the-butt.
The challenges in the Goblet of Fire are pretty good, satisfyingly dangerous and make for good reading. It's fairly obvious that Harry has been put in the challenge for evil reasons and You-Know-Who is behind the whole thing and Harry will triumph so three more books can be written. However, that doesn't diminish (as it never does in such books/movies) that it's really a great ride just finding out how he accomplishes each feat.
In this book, J.K. Rowling does start killing off characters. In this book it's a fairly minor character, but again, she's not playing Miss Nice Gal any more. In my opinion, the way it ended was "appropriate" and so was the choice of character ... not gratuitous ... and not cheesy. A better ending.
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
The Harry Potter books started lighter and kept getting darker. Darker in a kind of grim way, not in a black, delicious, wicked, delight way.
This one rather reminded me of grey skies and I guess that had something to do with the grey skies in the ending scenes of the movie.
Or maybe it was the Dementors draining the happiness out of me?
Yes, this one's the one when lots of new characters and ideas are introduced - one's Dementors which suck happiness out of you. Another few characters are Professor Lupin, the kind werewolf teacher, Sirius Black (the prisoner of Azkaban) and Peter Pettigrew.
I didn't really dislike this book, I just didn't really fall in love with it. While it was darker it wasn't so much fun and it wasn't fantastic with everyone being upset with each other - Hagrid wasn't so happy and people weren't so happy with his class, Hermione was more grouchy, the skies were darker. And there wasn't intrigue or depth to go along with the darkness.
A couple of things to note about the Potter books so far:
Professor Snape: OK, now that I've read the whole series I can say I know Professor Snape isn't the bad guy. But I figured this out from the first book, although the finer details were yet to be revealed. However it gets increasingly annoying to have every single thing revolve around how Harry and Ron and Hermione have to have arguments and suspicions over Snapey. Snape is cool! The more they whinge about Snape and try to blame him for anything and everything, the more I want to crack a broomstick over their heads and award a thousand points to Slytherin!
The Time-Turner: The Time-Turner concept was not bad but the way it was executed in both film and book (which were both differently done, markedly so) was crude. All the obvious and repeated pointers to "How could Hermione have done that, she hasn't done that class yet?" or "She was standing there and now she's standing here" over and over again were so blatant in the book.
And i the movie - when Harry went on about having seen his father save him - the moment it was out of his mouth, before I knew about the time-turner (I saw movie before read book) I said to myself "that was YOU not your Dad". I don't know how all this stuff is so obvious, or maybe I have just read a whole lot of similar books and too many borrow on the same plot devices.
However, I do not see myself as a huge fantasy fiction reader. I read some, I read it if it looks interesting or some if it's recommended, but I am by no means a buff.
So if I could figure that one out - who knows who else did?
This one rather reminded me of grey skies and I guess that had something to do with the grey skies in the ending scenes of the movie.
Or maybe it was the Dementors draining the happiness out of me?
Yes, this one's the one when lots of new characters and ideas are introduced - one's Dementors which suck happiness out of you. Another few characters are Professor Lupin, the kind werewolf teacher, Sirius Black (the prisoner of Azkaban) and Peter Pettigrew.
I didn't really dislike this book, I just didn't really fall in love with it. While it was darker it wasn't so much fun and it wasn't fantastic with everyone being upset with each other - Hagrid wasn't so happy and people weren't so happy with his class, Hermione was more grouchy, the skies were darker. And there wasn't intrigue or depth to go along with the darkness.
A couple of things to note about the Potter books so far:
Professor Snape: OK, now that I've read the whole series I can say I know Professor Snape isn't the bad guy. But I figured this out from the first book, although the finer details were yet to be revealed. However it gets increasingly annoying to have every single thing revolve around how Harry and Ron and Hermione have to have arguments and suspicions over Snapey. Snape is cool! The more they whinge about Snape and try to blame him for anything and everything, the more I want to crack a broomstick over their heads and award a thousand points to Slytherin!
The Time-Turner: The Time-Turner concept was not bad but the way it was executed in both film and book (which were both differently done, markedly so) was crude. All the obvious and repeated pointers to "How could Hermione have done that, she hasn't done that class yet?" or "She was standing there and now she's standing here" over and over again were so blatant in the book.
And i the movie - when Harry went on about having seen his father save him - the moment it was out of his mouth, before I knew about the time-turner (I saw movie before read book) I said to myself "that was YOU not your Dad". I don't know how all this stuff is so obvious, or maybe I have just read a whole lot of similar books and too many borrow on the same plot devices.
However, I do not see myself as a huge fantasy fiction reader. I read some, I read it if it looks interesting or some if it's recommended, but I am by no means a buff.
So if I could figure that one out - who knows who else did?
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Unfortunately, this book is a lot like The Philosopher's Stone except not that much better. In fact it's the same plot structure - Harry against the enemy at school, and a certain teacher who's the foil, a certian teacher who hates him, others he can trust, plus friends and enemies among students ... but it loses the shine of the freshness of the Philosopher's Stone.
The "anagram of Tom Riddle" device is not really very clever.
This book does introduce Ginny Weasley who turns out to be a better character later on in the series. Right now, she's not very interesting. Wait for her to grow up and gain a personality. Oh and it introduces Dobby, who, along with other house elves, become more interesting later on.
I read this one and watched the movie thinking "A bit more of the same, unfortunately it's getting a little tired now. And what's up with the Defence of the Dark Arts position?"
Some bright spots:
I actually thought some of the best bits worth commenting on were in the movie.
The whole Gilderoy Lockhart character - the vain, pompous, autograph-writing, egocentrical teacher is a good idea - but it's especially well carried out by Kenneth Branagh. And that duel between him and Professor Snape is really nicely done.
And I also liked seeing Arthur Weasley when Harry was brought back to the Weasley's place, and Mr Weasley interrogates him about Muggles (his obsession).
The way he asked Harry "What is the use of a rubber duck?" was actually really funny - and from what I remember, that wasn't even in the book.
(Oh and for the critics who complained that Hermione was not ugly enough in the movies - the scene where she takes Polyjuice Potion and turns half-cat should convince you she isn't always really cute, neither!)
The "anagram of Tom Riddle" device is not really very clever.
This book does introduce Ginny Weasley who turns out to be a better character later on in the series. Right now, she's not very interesting. Wait for her to grow up and gain a personality. Oh and it introduces Dobby, who, along with other house elves, become more interesting later on.
I read this one and watched the movie thinking "A bit more of the same, unfortunately it's getting a little tired now. And what's up with the Defence of the Dark Arts position?"
Some bright spots:
I actually thought some of the best bits worth commenting on were in the movie.
The whole Gilderoy Lockhart character - the vain, pompous, autograph-writing, egocentrical teacher is a good idea - but it's especially well carried out by Kenneth Branagh. And that duel between him and Professor Snape is really nicely done.
And I also liked seeing Arthur Weasley when Harry was brought back to the Weasley's place, and Mr Weasley interrogates him about Muggles (his obsession).
The way he asked Harry "What is the use of a rubber duck?" was actually really funny - and from what I remember, that wasn't even in the book.
(Oh and for the critics who complained that Hermione was not ugly enough in the movies - the scene where she takes Polyjuice Potion and turns half-cat should convince you she isn't always really cute, neither!)
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
This is the order in which I eked the essence out of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone:
My first acquaintance was the Latin version of it - I tried to translate the first chapter into some semblance of English.
Then I watched the movie.
Then I read the book.
I am, as they say, "The Woman who is Backwards".
The Philosopher's Stone, I thought, was not a bad book. It had a charming simplicity and freshness and fun to it - for younger readers. I guess I don't fall into that category but I'm used to reading kids' books so maybe my brain switches easily into appreciation of that and doesn't need the later bloodsheds and twists of story to think "that's a good book!"
Even if it was a little too predictable for my liking, the characters were very likable. Against the flow, I happened to like Professor Snape. He reminds me of Dr Cox on Scrubs except without the humour and he's not American. But if there were an American Professor Snape and he could just have a little bit of humour, I could see John C. McGinley there. Not that Alan Rickman doesn't do a superb job. He was, I thought, one of the better actors in the cast. I also thought Hermione was brilliantly cast.
And some of the concepts were a bit of fun - like the Sorting Hat, or Professor Quirrell and Voldemort's head! And "Wizard Chess".
However: Some things about the Philosopher's Stone were just plain cheesy. The ending where Gryffindor wins all the points and beats Slytherin - that was too plain cheesy. You might as well have found princes for all the girls to marry.
I found the explanation of Quidditch to be just plain weird. The whole concept of having a game where one team member (the Seeker) be the one who not only can end the match by catching the Snitch, but "whoever catches it usually wins the game" - you wonder why the heck they bother with the Beaters and Chasers at all. Why don't they spend all their time coaching the Seeker and/or hitting the other Seeker of his/her broomstick? Why does anyone really care about the other players at all - the Seeker gets pretty much all the glory?
It seemed to me that the game would be pretty boring most of the time.
I read a whole lot of critics going on about how the Philosopher's Stone was so unique and creative and how it was so like Roald Dahl.
Personally, I thought the writing was entertaining and there were some imaginative concepts there. However I agree with Ursula K. Le Guin (The Wave in the Mind) that those who ranted about its uniqueness didn't seem to note that it drew from two grand literary traditions - the English boarding school and the witches/wizards/magic tradition (with some very obvious nods to established myths and terms in magic).
Even the idea of a "witchcraft school for young witches" isn't a unique one - A set of books by Jill Murphy called The Worst Witch series centres on a witchcraft school attended by young witches of various abilities who have friends and enemies, teachers who are variously likable and dislikable, different "witchcraft classes" and a central character "Mildred Hubble" who gets into trouble constantly but somehow saves the day. The series was even popular to get made into a TV series.
This doesn't detract from Harry Potter as a fun and entertaining series - and most writers either get their ideas from somewhere or have had bits of their ideas "done" before - coming up with a completely unique idea is virtually impossible. However I'd just challenge that particular "school of critic".
The other thing is ... well I'm a big fan of Roald Dahl and when I read the Philosopher's Stone I didn't think that there was a lot to compare Rowling and Dahl with ... oh except they are both popular and successful British children's authors, and Rowling even broke into poetry (with the Sorting Hat) in the middle of her book, which was a popular device of Dahl's.
What marked Dahl's writing for me was not all the weird names he used for his characters (which some people probably felt was similar to all the imaginative names Rowling gave to her characters) but his somewhat savage and often naughty sense of humour.
Kids who get eaten up in a pie. A headmistress who throws a kid over a fence for wearing her hair the wrong way. Farting for sport. Collecting food in your beard for a "snack". Putting worms in the spaghetti, turning children into rats, throwing kids into the garbage chute and then jumping around and singing songs about how fun it is. That's all characteristic of Dahl. Not nearly so in the Philosopher's Stone.
All in all, quite good but not what I would say gripping. Perhaps it would bave gripped me had I been a lot younger.
My first acquaintance was the Latin version of it - I tried to translate the first chapter into some semblance of English.
Then I watched the movie.
Then I read the book.
I am, as they say, "The Woman who is Backwards".
The Philosopher's Stone, I thought, was not a bad book. It had a charming simplicity and freshness and fun to it - for younger readers. I guess I don't fall into that category but I'm used to reading kids' books so maybe my brain switches easily into appreciation of that and doesn't need the later bloodsheds and twists of story to think "that's a good book!"
Even if it was a little too predictable for my liking, the characters were very likable. Against the flow, I happened to like Professor Snape. He reminds me of Dr Cox on Scrubs except without the humour and he's not American. But if there were an American Professor Snape and he could just have a little bit of humour, I could see John C. McGinley there. Not that Alan Rickman doesn't do a superb job. He was, I thought, one of the better actors in the cast. I also thought Hermione was brilliantly cast.
And some of the concepts were a bit of fun - like the Sorting Hat, or Professor Quirrell and Voldemort's head! And "Wizard Chess".
However: Some things about the Philosopher's Stone were just plain cheesy. The ending where Gryffindor wins all the points and beats Slytherin - that was too plain cheesy. You might as well have found princes for all the girls to marry.
I found the explanation of Quidditch to be just plain weird. The whole concept of having a game where one team member (the Seeker) be the one who not only can end the match by catching the Snitch, but "whoever catches it usually wins the game" - you wonder why the heck they bother with the Beaters and Chasers at all. Why don't they spend all their time coaching the Seeker and/or hitting the other Seeker of his/her broomstick? Why does anyone really care about the other players at all - the Seeker gets pretty much all the glory?
It seemed to me that the game would be pretty boring most of the time.
I read a whole lot of critics going on about how the Philosopher's Stone was so unique and creative and how it was so like Roald Dahl.
Personally, I thought the writing was entertaining and there were some imaginative concepts there. However I agree with Ursula K. Le Guin (The Wave in the Mind) that those who ranted about its uniqueness didn't seem to note that it drew from two grand literary traditions - the English boarding school and the witches/wizards/magic tradition (with some very obvious nods to established myths and terms in magic).
Even the idea of a "witchcraft school for young witches" isn't a unique one - A set of books by Jill Murphy called The Worst Witch series centres on a witchcraft school attended by young witches of various abilities who have friends and enemies, teachers who are variously likable and dislikable, different "witchcraft classes" and a central character "Mildred Hubble" who gets into trouble constantly but somehow saves the day. The series was even popular to get made into a TV series.
This doesn't detract from Harry Potter as a fun and entertaining series - and most writers either get their ideas from somewhere or have had bits of their ideas "done" before - coming up with a completely unique idea is virtually impossible. However I'd just challenge that particular "school of critic".
The other thing is ... well I'm a big fan of Roald Dahl and when I read the Philosopher's Stone I didn't think that there was a lot to compare Rowling and Dahl with ... oh except they are both popular and successful British children's authors, and Rowling even broke into poetry (with the Sorting Hat) in the middle of her book, which was a popular device of Dahl's.
What marked Dahl's writing for me was not all the weird names he used for his characters (which some people probably felt was similar to all the imaginative names Rowling gave to her characters) but his somewhat savage and often naughty sense of humour.
Kids who get eaten up in a pie. A headmistress who throws a kid over a fence for wearing her hair the wrong way. Farting for sport. Collecting food in your beard for a "snack". Putting worms in the spaghetti, turning children into rats, throwing kids into the garbage chute and then jumping around and singing songs about how fun it is. That's all characteristic of Dahl. Not nearly so in the Philosopher's Stone.
All in all, quite good but not what I would say gripping. Perhaps it would bave gripped me had I been a lot younger.
Seven
Even though it wasn't on my list of New Year's Resolutions, somehow I stumbled upon a pursuit this year and turned it into some kind of goal, game, race, whatever. It was an accident that I found it, but I'm glad I did.
I started to read two children's series with seven books in each series. Both well-known. Both highly acclaimed. Both very different. (One I've finished, one I haven't).
The first was the Harry Potter series, by J.K. Rowling. I completed the last book in series tonight.
The other was the Tomorrow, When the War Began series, by John Marsden. I've completed up to the fifth book in that one.
Now, first of all, I'll mention that both these series were not just series I forced myself to read to complete a task. I enjoyed reading both - and will definitely complete Marsden's series.
There have been other series which I've heard are good but have been unable to continue going with. I attempted to read Isobelle Carmody's Obernewtyn. It didn't really do it for me. I pursued with Book 2, then stopped. It just wasn't my thing.
But both these series have been a lot of fun and captured my interest. I was interested in doing a compare/contrast, but the series were so different it was like comparing apples with oranges.
Then I thought, "What the heck? Why can't you compare apples with oranges? They are both fruit!"
So why the heck not? .... just have to finish 2 John Marsden books ...
I started to read two children's series with seven books in each series. Both well-known. Both highly acclaimed. Both very different. (One I've finished, one I haven't).
The first was the Harry Potter series, by J.K. Rowling. I completed the last book in series tonight.
The other was the Tomorrow, When the War Began series, by John Marsden. I've completed up to the fifth book in that one.
Now, first of all, I'll mention that both these series were not just series I forced myself to read to complete a task. I enjoyed reading both - and will definitely complete Marsden's series.
There have been other series which I've heard are good but have been unable to continue going with. I attempted to read Isobelle Carmody's Obernewtyn. It didn't really do it for me. I pursued with Book 2, then stopped. It just wasn't my thing.
But both these series have been a lot of fun and captured my interest. I was interested in doing a compare/contrast, but the series were so different it was like comparing apples with oranges.
Then I thought, "What the heck? Why can't you compare apples with oranges? They are both fruit!"
So why the heck not? .... just have to finish 2 John Marsden books ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
