/lit/ - Literature

Maybe, fine. Whatever.

inb4 there are only 5 original stories in the world.

Not gonna click the link, what's this about? Give me the jist, I'm busy.

I'm no Star Wars fanboy, and I've never read the Lord of the Rings, but the Harry Potter films and books are shallow, childish, and sometimes downright awful.

>>1154519

Same is true of SW and LOTR.

Harry Potter's worse because more of us here in congress assembled can remember a time before it blighted the world.

All he did was oversimplify his synopses of Star Wars and LOTR and fluff up the one for Harry Potter. You can make anything look good or bad by doing that. And people do. And they're idiots as well.

>>1154519

>the'star wars films and books are shallow, childish, and sometimes (books, prequels, cartoons) downright awful.

>the biggest and best blockbusters always appeal to people of every age

Terminator 2: R
The Matrix: R
The Godfather: R

Who is this moron?

To paraphrase the last part.

"Harry Potter is better than LOTR or Star Wars and if you don't agree then you have to grow up."

Did he get payed real money for this article?

>>1154540

> implying kids don't get to see R rated movies
> implying those ratings aren't deliberately sought to make movies more attractive to kids
> implying The Godfather is a franchise movie

>>1154543

> payed

lol

The people this article will annoy are intellectually at the level of sugar-habituated eleven-year-olds, and deserve the anguish.

>Indeed, Harry Potter’s audience is also more evenly split between the sexes than Star Wars and Lord of the Rings,

more diverse audience = better film? Since when is the lowest common denominator of audiences good at gauging a film's quality?

>both of which appeal far more to emotionally stunted fanboys
because Harry Potter fans are so mature and grown up, right?

>who can’t seem to survive without some complex actions sequences and contrived back history to slaver over.
So what's with the contrived and thinly veiled Hitler allegorical back story to Voldemort and all the pandering quiddich scenes?

>For this reason alone you could probably rightly argue that Harry Potter is the best blockbuster film franchise of all time, easily outdoing its more puerile peers.
so because something is really popular, appeals to "mature" people, and doesn't have self-indulgent action scenes and contrived back stories (which HARRY POTTER DOES HAVE), it's the best franchise out there?

Nigga, you just went full retard.

>>1154544
> implying kids don't get to see R rated movies

I DIDN'T.

I didn't get to see Jurassic Fucking Park because my parents lied to me and said it was rated R because they thought dinosaurs would give me nightmares.

The children will cry about this, but what does it matter? All three franchises appeal to dummies who don't give a fuck about their imaginitive diet. Who cares?

>>1154544
/tv/ here.

The R rating is actually avoided these days. Lower rating = more kids = more tickets sold. See: all PG-13 rated horror movies, Die Hard 4, etc.

>>1154563

Not when those movies were released though WHICH WAS POINT.

>So despite apparently being the kid’s movie by comparison, Harry Potter has certainly developed into something more emotionally mature than either of its competitors, far more adept at leaving viewers in the dark as to the motivations of some of its main characters.

Are we even talking about the same Harry Potter? The films/books where all the characters are flatter than a cardboard cutout, where the villains fail to have a single redeeming quality, the protagonists fail to have a single character flaw, and where the protagonist doesn't make A SINGLE FUCKING MORAL DECISION?

Nobody grows up in these fucking films. There is no difference between Harry Potter in book one and book seven. He's still a helpless idiot who relies on his friends and dumb luck to save him.

>>1154597

u mad

There is no point having an argument about which of three examples of crypto-fascist non-art is 'BETTER'. But you will, won't you? For every man there exists the bait he cannot resist swallowing.

>>1154597
>BAWWWWWWWW

I read the books. I liked the books. Deal with it.

Haters gonna hate.

>>1154606
yes, I cannot stand it when Harry Potter faggots try to convince me of how deep and mature their children literature is, even though the books boil down to "nazis are bad" and "friendship is fun!"

>>1154613
Only a child would say something that stupid.

Take them for what they are: fun and entertaining stories.

I loved harry potter
I'm reading it again

>>1154641
if I found them fun and entertaining, then I would. However 400 pages of camping out in the woods is neither fun nor entertaining, and reading a book filled with the most predictable and flattest characters ever isn't fun or entertaining either.

I guess what I"m getting at is that I don't find bad books fun or entertaining.

>>1154645
couldn't you be, you know, a reasonable human being and say that you didn't like them but that you understand that different people have different preferences

oh wait, sorry, this is 4chan, liking harry potter / science fiction / fantasy makes us pedophile shitwizards

>>1154650

But that isn't what reasonable people say. It's what cowardly liars say. Those who love literature are duty-bound to speak the truth when they see its good name being shit upon from a great height by industrialised entertainment.

>>1154650
I know people have different preferences.

Some people like apples, some people like oranges, and some people like to eat dog shit. Don't tell me that I can't ridicule people for enjoying shit.

>>1154662
>Those who love literature are duty-bound to speak the truth when they see its good name being shit upon from a great height by industrialised entertainment.

You know who says that? Pretentious douchebags with tremendous superiority complexes. Harry Potter isn't shitting on literature, you doofus. They exist side-by-side. Harry Potter is not fucking harming literature. You're not defending literature. And you don't have some kind of objective knowledge of what's good, for Christ's sake. Reasonable people say that because that acknowledge that people are different and can like different things. You don't like Harry Potter and think that it's not that good? that's perfectly fine! whatever! but don't claim that liking Harry Potter literally makes you a bad person because that's fucking stupid.

Shit.

>>1154645
>>1154662
No fun allowed at your house, apparently.

Whatever. Enjoy being an angry holier-than-thou Literary_Expert(read 5839 books, most recent: Something Foreign and Pretentious).

>>1154673

No, what I said was the truth and will remain the truth.

The 'something foreign and pretentious' anon is at least honest - s/he knows that this filth is inimical to literature.

Harry Potter isn't fun, nor is raping children. It's only your mental disease that makes it appear so to you.

>>1154673

You don't get to have an opinion - you're no-one's equal or superior. You are everyone's inferior. Except maybe John Wayne Gacy's.

>>1154681
you literally compared liking a popular children's book series to being a pedophile. you just did that, right now. that just happened. you're fucking insane. no book is harmful to literature, you enormous ass.

>>1154685
this trolling doesn't even make sense anymore

>>1154688

>no book is harmful to literature

>>1154688

It's as bad, if not worse, because a pedophile risks death and can be brought to justice, whereas your evil is endorsed and cozened.

>>1154698

HAHAHA.

I don't agree, but I get the joke because I'm not a child-fucker who reads Harry Potter with enjoyment.

>>1154699
>>1154703
you are literally insane PEACE YALL I AM OUT

>>1154671
>No fun allowed at your house, apparently.

ah, now you're arguing like a Twilight fan. Good for you.

Believe it or not, I do have fun reading books. Books that aren't written for fifth graders. Books that have a level of ambiguity to them that invite interpretation. Books that don't hit you over the head with childish assertions that the world is black and white and everything can be solved with friendship and believing in yourself-- the Care Bears did that and nobody takes the Care Bears seriously.

>>1154711

You don't get to have an opinion, like I just told you.

>>1154565

Hey dickwad, there's no such thing as an imaginative "diet". Are you like a vegan of the imagination?

"I only read accounting textbooks and law casebooks because it keeps my imagination trim."

Star Wars, Harry Potter, and LotR are awesome. To say otherwise is comparable to saying the SNES sucked. Why don't you like Mario Kart? Because you're a douche. What is the world coming to?

Also you spelled imaginative wrong.

>>1154713
>Books that aren't written for fifth graders.

I like those books too. But why am I not allowed to like something written for children? Is there some rule that says I can only read adult books for adults such as myself?

The fact is that I was the target audience for these books when they came out, and I continued to read them into adulthood because I enjoyed them. If you can't deal with that, then it sucks to be you. Enjoy being mad. I'll be over here, laughing at your SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS attitude.

Fantasy and imagination are two entirely different things. The equation of diet-consciousness with reading only factual books reveals the death of imagination in the reader of shit like Harry Potter.


>>1154777

It's called arrested development, a common trait of pedophiles.

Harry Potter really is shit though

Like, Star Wars novelization shit

The only thing it has going for it is a kind of attractive imaginative real estate, as in "man wouldn't it be cool to go to wizard school what if i am a secret wizard what house would i be in what would my wand be like unicorn hair what class would be my favourite i want to hang out at the wizard pub" etc. it invites the reader to inhabit the world

Lots of bad writing and characters

Jesus fucking Christ this link is to stv, the worst television station in the UK.

BTW: I'm Scottish.

>>1154804

I don't believe you, post vocaroo of you shouting FUCK OAF YE FOOKIN CUNT

They're all shit, and we only think they have any real merit because of childhood nostalgia.

Who cares which one came out on top in a fucking online poll?

"STOP HAVING FUN AND READ RIGHT, GUYS" much?

I'd rather kids read at all than decide that all books are incomprehensible and boring. Even reading Twilight is better for inane <90IQ tween girls than thinking books are those old things english classes sometimes make you pretend to look at.

I was in high school when the first Twilight came out, after which I got MUCH less funny looks when I said that no, I wasn't reading this thick novel for the English Class From Hell, I just liked the book and wanted to read it.

I never liked Harry Potter, by the way, because as a kid I didn't like fantasy much at all (ironically, because I thought it was all kiddie). You don't have to read "classics" to be a fan of literature. It just boils down to people not liking hte same things you do. There is no reason to claim that Harry Potter isn't literature because it's popular.

>>1154789
>like Star Wars novellization shit
The EU varies /wildly/ in quality, ranging from mind-numbingly retarded to surprisingly thoughtful. The movie novellizations themselves are nothing special, except for Episode 3's novellization, because the author basically said "Fuck it, George Lucas is a shitty storyteller" and re-wrote half the story to drum out the movie's shitty points and expand on its' good points.

>>1154787

If humor is part of your imaginative diet, you must be undernourished in that department seeing as you couldn't recognize a joke. Replace "factual books" with any "serious fiction" you see fit. It's absurd however you look at it.

And since you jumped to a conclusion without explaining what the shit a healthy imaginative diet consists of, it's hard to take your claim as serious (your claim being that Harry Potter=DEATH TO IMAGINATION!!).

Let's take a look at what imagination means. Here's your definition:

the faculty of producing ideal creations consistent with reality, as in literature, as distinct from the power of creating illustrative or decorative imagery (I can only assume since you didn't clarify).

But wait, here's another:

the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation, often a baseless or fanciful one

There's a bunch of other ones if you look it up. You get my point though.

>>1154787
Haha, oh wow.

You're seriously calling me a pedophile? Seriously?

Wow.

If you want a book that can kill literature don't fucking mention Twatlight, it already destroyed Vampires already completely.