[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 266 KB, 2500x1406, Harry-Potter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9979783 No.9979783 [Reply] [Original]

I know I'm slow-poking on this but since fucking when was Harry Potter based in the nineties?

http://io9.gizmodo.com/harry-potters-kid-is-enrolling-in-hogwarts-today-1798705800

>> No.9979788

>>9979783
Since always you dingus. How did you not figure this out? I don't even like HP and I know this.

>> No.9980183

>>9979783
Always. In Chamber of Secrets we get to see Nearly Headless Nick's 500th deathday party, and it says he died 1492. Since then all the dates are consistent.

Harry's born in 1980, Voldemort's born in 1926, and Dumbledore's born in 1881. The dude is 99 years older than Harry.

Minus the opening chapter of Philosopher's Stone, which takes place in 1981 after Voldemort 'dies' the first time, the whole series takes place from 1991 to 1998.

What were you imagining, OP?

>> No.9980363

3 days ago, Friday September 1 2017, was "19 years later" , the final scene in the Harry Potter series

>> No.9980763

>>9980363
o.o

>> No.9981542

always senpai, off the top of my head i remember that the first book is early 90s like 91\92 which would make the last one around 98\99

>> No.9981544

>>9980363
2 days ago harry ginny ron n hermaione sent their kiddos to hogwartz .
>mfw hogwartz is probably shit now

>> No.9981748

>>9980363
>Everyone has agreed to completely ignore Cursed Child

>> No.9981797
File: 540 KB, 1616x2896, 1503916938000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9981797

Does anyone else think Harry Potter has been one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises? Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though r-right
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

>> No.9981803

>>9981797
Terrible opening line. Come on man. You can do so much better. I remember the creativity of this pasta's opening lines on /tv/.