Sometimes I lose confidence

Childintime wrote:

tigerswiftly wrote:

I grew up with the books. I devoured most of them (well, 3-5) on release. The final two didn't appeal so much, though I still enjoyed them all the same. My mum picked up the first one for me when it first came out. Always had an eye for a book, Mama Tiger. The films are fine. Nothing more.

I'll always stand by PoA being a great movie - by far the best of the Potters.

Seconded

Cuarón's good so I imagine it's alright. Has the advantage also of probably being the best of the books and starring Gary Oldman

Order of the Phoenix was the best film, trufax. PoA the best book but.

I once had an argument with someone who insisted that Rowling was a hack because she'd plagiarised so many other stories - he then went on to compare her to Tolkien who he seemed to think was entirely original...  Whilst she draws on plenty of existing tales, hers is as good a remix as any.  (Though I shall never forgive her for ruining Boggarts.)

As for whether or not she's a good writer in general - I guess it depends on your definition of "good writer".  Her prose is sometimes meandering, not remotely poetic and often self indulgent.  (Particularly towards the end of the run.)  Meanwhile Hermione is pretty clearly a Mary Sue.  On the other hand it's eminently readable, and is utterly loved by a phenomenally large number of people, many of whom have barely read anything else.  Like it or not, she's doing something right.  (And she got a publishing deal, and reasonable success, for her detective novels despite submitting and publishing under a pseudonym.  So she's done it twice, aimed at two different markets.)

What I've found interesting amongst the people I know is that pretty much all kids quite like Potter.  (They've certainly all read them all.)  But it's the Middle Aged Mums in my social circle who really adore it.  I'm not sure why really, but it's interesting that it's a group of readers that broadly reflect Rowling's position when she wrote it, and I wonder whether there's something there that it taps into.

The films are OK, but like the books Azkaban is clearly the best...

hahahaha, why oh why didn't I take the chance to go to Sherborne

WTAF?

Brooks wrote:

Of all the offences to my taste the worst was probably the unconcealed aspirational zeal for a very bloodless kind of boarding school, a more total fantasy than any amount of waving magic wands about.

Yeah, no pisskop.

tin_robot wrote:

(And she got a publishing deal, and reasonable success, for her detective novels despite submitting and publishing under a pseudonym.  So she's done it twice, aimed at two different markets.)

You know I'm Captain Suss about that sort of thing. I'd expect a mutual agreement to reveal her identity (QED) at some point, simultaneously boosting her credibility and sales (for the pub's protection if they'd floundered).

Yossarian wrote:

future students will almost certainly be as antipathetic towards it as we all were towards the books that we had to read in school.

I think I only ever read the Asterix books in our library.

The Narnias are pretty awful in many ways, but I've always loved The Voyage of the Dawn Treader as a book title. Something so fraught with danger imagined at its most tranquil.

You fuckers should have got on The Deptford Mice trilogy by Robin Jarvis, shit me right up they did when I was 14. Like the Animals of Farthing Wood meets Hellraiser it was.

Anyway

Might as well post this in here...

I went to see Harry Potter and the Cursed Child yesterday.  (The new(ish) play).  My wife and daughters are massive fans (I quite like it, but don't really get the hysteria) so we bought the tickets a year ago - which gives some idea of the demand.  

It's...  OK.  Actually, that's unfair.  If you're a big Potter fan it's, apparently, absolutely amazing.  Particularly if you've managed to avoid reading the script or generally having it spoiled. 

It's certainly consistent with previous Potter stuff, for good and ill.  The whole thing is stretched over 2 plays, and, yes, you could easily have done it in one with judicious editing.  There's an almost painful amount of exposition and referencing of previous adventures - with much of the play operating as fan service.  (If you're going to see it, and haven't read the books/ seen the films in a while, it's worth revising Goblet of Fire if nothing else.)  

Said exposition means that the 45 minutes or so is pretty stilted and awkward, before it finally kicks into gear properly.

That said, when it does - it really does.  Second half of part one is solid theatre from beginning to end, with part 2 never quite hitting the same level, but occasionally getting close.  

The staging itself, barring some slightly bizarre quasi-dance sequences, is stunning.  If you hate Harry Potter but find yourself in the odd position of being given tickets, then go and see Part One at least.  You'll get some of the finest stage magic outside of Vegas, and if you leave it on the cliff-hangar you'll get the Harry Potter finale you dreamed of.

If you love Potter, it's worth the insane wait and painful prices (and/or the lottery for cheaper tickets).  If nothing else seeing people use Polyjuice/transfigure live on stage is damn impressive.  Whilst my children totally freaked out when we got the inevitable appearance from Dementors...