Escape to the Movies: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I want to say that I watched all Overthinkers too and enjoy them too, as I enjoy the reviews.
I read all 7 books and I'm the kind of guy that had the problem with 1st or 2nd movie that wasn't exactly as the book - like in the LotR:RotK when the ghost army was used in diffrent battle, I was pissed as hell. Any filler material usually pisses me off, and I'm glad to know about it before seeing the movie.
I don't find "no spoiler" think bad, because people that want to care about this movie should already read all the books and otherwise they're stupid! (because they don't read books)
Emma Watson is 19 now, as fudgeable as she is, we've got so see her grow up and that's fudged up. It's not like Britney that jumped as hot jailbait and later we've got to see her childhood pictures (like most of young female stars), but threatment like that is like pedophile training...
I remember that while reading HP I was waiting till he gets some action from the asian chick, but after that Harry gets very annoying with the certain uncertanity of his character - his always off with his assumptions about anything, and while it makes up for a good plottwist at the end, but makes the main characters look stupid.
I liked the review with the extras from other movies, but those fast disapearing texts are a problem and I usually pause the clip the moment I see one and it normally doesn't break the flow for me.
I read all 7 books and I'm the kind of guy that had the problem with 1st or 2nd movie that wasn't exactly as the book - like in the LotR:RotK when the ghost army was used in diffrent battle, I was pissed as hell. Any filler material usually pisses me off, and I'm glad to know about it before seeing the movie.
I don't find "no spoiler" think bad, because people that want to care about this movie should already read all the books and otherwise they're stupid! (because they don't read books)
Emma Watson is 19 now, as fudgeable as she is, we've got so see her grow up and that's fudged up. It's not like Britney that jumped as hot jailbait and later we've got to see her childhood pictures (like most of young female stars), but threatment like that is like pedophile training...
I remember that while reading HP I was waiting till he gets some action from the asian chick, but after that Harry gets very annoying with the certain uncertanity of his character - his always off with his assumptions about anything, and while it makes up for a good plottwist at the end, but makes the main characters look stupid.
I liked the review with the extras from other movies, but those fast disapearing texts are a problem and I usually pause the clip the moment I see one and it normally doesn't break the flow for me.
Amusing review.
I really like the books, so of course I got a proper slap in the face again, every single adaption since the 2. is nothing less.
So, to sum this down:
*If you actually like the books and don't like that they change stuff, then you will be disappointed.
*If you like the movies, then go see it, you will probably think the 5. was better, but never the less.
*If you are a 14 year old girl then you will love it.
You have actually understood something crucial. =)GrandAdmiral said:
I really like the books, so of course I got a proper slap in the face again, every single adaption since the 2. is nothing less.
So, to sum this down:
*If you actually like the books and don't like that they change stuff, then you will be disappointed.
*If you like the movies, then go see it, you will probably think the 5. was better, but never the less.
*If you are a 14 year old girl then you will love it.
And i am suprised that you did, 11 mins afetr the video came out and no idiots jumped it and made something up about the video.Xandus117 said:
Honestly(Isn't that what we all want?) I dont care to see this movie, unless i am getting some chicks shirt off for this, i'm not seeing it, which is better than what she'd have to do to get me to see Twilight, and i dont think most girls are willing to do all of that in cheese, This might be different if All of the movies, except for the first one didnt share a camera filter with the 1/4 scene i saw from Twilight.
I feel sub-human to be talking about this movie it might be good, this review didnt help me decide on whether its worth a mention and, blah, blah blah i don't care anymore...
I read something in another post and it gave me just enough feeling to say that i did enjoy the books, but i haven't read the last one, because by the time it came out i had read actual books for actual people, instead of "young adults", like most of Stephen King's books, The Pillars of the Earth, and some other, blah, blah blah....
You simply cannot compare Magneto and Rand. Magneto uses force to try to get his way with OTHER PEOPLE PROPERTY which is something you cannot do in objectiveism. Rands view of selfishness is you can only be selfish when dealing with YOUR OWN PROPERTY. and Rands view on violence is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4D3TFHL_JQ&feature=PlayList&p=D688153FDB922DE8&index=9.Silva said:
What rands characters did in Atlas shrugged when they were being expolited by the rest of the world is simple stop working and leaving the world to its own ends. While Magneto uses violence to force is views on the world. They are very different types of people and to compare them out of your and moviebobs ignorance of objectiveism is pitiful. Do your homework next time so mabe you wont make an ass out of your self.
Can I take from this that you're okay with making fun of Robert Heinlein, though?Oldmanwillow said:
In all seriousness, I'm a libertarian ("small-l,") I appreciate what Paul was trying to stand for and I'm quite fond of both Ayn Rand and Objectivism. There's a well-worn copy of Atlas Shrugged in my general eyesight right now, in fact. That doesn't mean I won't poke some fun at either of them from time to time, especially recognizing how left-field that particular block of references was.
As to substance... Look, like I said, I LIKE Paul but it must be said: He's a little on the "crazy old man" side. NOT because of what he believes, but the manner in which he approaches it. He's not doing a great job as a spokesperson for his own movement, and his lack of media saavy (not realizing that failing to dissasociate his campaign from various neo-fascist sects trying to jump on his wagon, not having a single person on staff who knew who Sacha Baron Cohen was, etc) is proof of that he's in the unfortunate position of being the elder-spokesman of a philosophy thats re-emerged with a young audience but hasn't yet generated a generationally-appropriate standard bearer.
As to Ayn Rand... I won't lie, I at least partially wanted to stir up some traffic and poking the Objectivist beehive is usually a good way to do that. So far, mission accomplished
Hmm, so in other words, you mean that she was perky FOR a Goth. That changes things in my head a little. Thanks for the clarification.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Amusing, then, how contradictory her views truly were. To call selfishness a virtue then to wax lyrical about how wrong it is to be violent is an amusing 180 degree turn. That goes from selfishness to altruism. It is a hypocritical thing, but I would never argue with calling violence wrong. But I would point out that the selfish portion of violence is a large section of what makes it wrong - i.e. denying another's right to live, as Galt puts it, is a selfish act, and that particular kind of selfishness is that of one who wishes to take and take with no regard for their fellow humans.Oldmanwillow said:
If you believe that being violent in a direct manner is the only way to kill people, then you are dead wrong. Stopping work would mean that those who followed such characters would be denying the economy a chance to operate correctly. This would create economic strife, which always hits the poor the hardest. The poor would then work their hardest but still die of starvation, not to mention a great many denials of opportunity, which Galt ironically calls the taking of life "in a more general sense". Ergo, such actions, outside the convenient premises of fiction, would lead to the destruction of men as surely as any gunshot.
Besides which, there are those who would use objectivism as a vehicle for fascism, and for violence. That they do not follow the entirety of Rand's creeds does not deny them the opportunity to tarnish the reputation of less violent objectivists, for they appear as no less than a sect of the same belief system to any outsider. If a philosophy can be so easily turned to negative action, be it economic or violent, then the result is the same. Loss of life. A situation I will refuse to occur.
Do not defend your philosophy with a lightweight argument that could only operate in the realms of fiction and not in the reality of the world economy, then call me idiot.
I should point out that I, like MovieBob, have reasons to poke and prod the objectivist "beehive", and will continue to do so to your irritation. I have deep distrust for any philosophy with contradictions that obvious, and with followers so keen to defend the dead Rand - altrustically, for a philosopher that preaches selfishness! At least realise the irony of what you are doing, if you wish to debate this.
I'm not necessarily comparing the two philosophically, it's more the characters and the way they deal with their situation as a member of a paradoxically persecuted superior being. The fact is, "Atlas Shrugged" is not the first (or best) scifi/futurist "negative utopia" story to focus on an elite minority suffering under the jealous tyranny of an "average" majority. Heck, pre-spaceflight this was damn near the most prevalent subgenre of what was not yet called science-fiction (making, as it does, a perfect allegory for the situation of "the nerd" versus "the world.") It's just the most politically-charged and well known today.Oldmanwillow said:
The main thing is that these stories only go one of two ways: Either the "superhuman/superior minority" is a kind of benevolent protector (see: the military and/or militarized government in much of Heinlein's work) or there is a conflict between them and the "normal" world. "Atlas" belongs more or less to the second type, even if there's no declaration of war. And, frankly, even though John Galt is non-violent himself, his movement is quite action-oriented: Even setting aside that he essentially condones Ragnar Djanneskold's piracy campaign, he and the other "strikers" are quite aware that the end-result of their manuevers will be a far-reaching societal collapse. And regardless of what Rand the philosopher has to say about violence, Rand the AUTHOR has an obvious blast describing the chaotic ends that come to the "bad guys" of the story.
Your argument comes from not understanding objectiveism.Silva said:
Question If you were selfish with your own Property and felt a desire for someone elese property would that lead to violence for an objectiveist.
Answer? No. If i had the right to be selfish with my own property the other person naturally was a right to be selfish with his property.
With YOUR own property you have the right to do with it what you want. Because your are not
entitled to others people property they are not entitled to yours. You only trade when its both parties let the transaction takes place not by ones physical force. Its simple logic you should try and use it sometime.
So Since other are not entitled to your property and you are not entitled to theses it perfectly logic to not cooperate when you do not agree with an others action but cant force them to change it physically change it what do you do? you dont go through the deal. You arent taking away free will they can still chooses both options. (like North korea with their nukes. They could of taken apart there nuclear program and goten all the money but they chooses not to). Sure they are indircetly forcing their view, but again they are only manipulating their end of the wager. Not the other parties.
The only true political direction that objectiveism could take is libertarianism. How you got facism out of it tell me more that you dont understand (or care to understand objectiveism)
How could you say that objectiveism could only work in fiction. IT HASNT BEEN TRIED YET. all other systems have been tested and all have failed from time to time. so you are saying because it hasnt been tried that it cannot work. They have said that about every major invention of mankind. hmmmm?
You misspell the name of your own philosophy, then presume to tell me that I do not understand it?Oldmanwillow said:
How ironic.
You do realise, of course, that after saying that I do not understand objectivism, you have failed to point out what exactly I have missed? Perhaps this is because I have missed nothing. At this point, you have only confirmed that there is very little I do not understand about this system.
My point, which you have so clearly ignored for lack of understanding, was to imply a question: what is a follower of a philosophy? Is it someone who agrees with the original philosopher or founder of that set of beliefs in all ways (if possible, which in some times, particularly where contradictions such as with Rand are concerned)? Or is it someone who identifies themselves as a member of that philosophy, even if there are disagreements?
The answer that I implied shortly after was that a follower must be whatever the majority of identifiable followers call themselves. This makes the language both efficient and manageable, and allows social movements to be spoken of as denoted by their result rather than by their genesis.
If that is so, then a follower of a philosophy who has some disagreements with the founding philosopher is still a follower overall.
That section of followers may end up being the true test of the philosophy itself, that is, whether or not it can become useful to humanity, and whether or not the original theory can be taken into practice. If there is too much difference between the original and the human result, then the philosophy is at its core unsuccessful. That situation is precisely what I believe is becoming obvious with objectivism, since even though Rand taught that violence was incurably wrong, the men who follow her support wars and often take a very extreme stance about non-American countries.
This is no direct refute for any belief that I have stood for. You are merely recalling your beliefs for my entertainment and disdain.
Just to make this a little more useful, I will ask: are you saying that objectivists do not support war? I'd love you to point out any statistics that suggest anything other than the majority of self-claimed objectivists are right-wing supporters of all recent American wars.
I understand the simple rule, and in and of itself I do not disagree with it. It is the larger system that I have refuted, and that you have yet to defend. You should get on with that if you want to seem like someone doing something other than mindlessly shoving views down the other's throat. An argument requires direct engagement with the opponent's points, not this avoidance of what I have said.
If you are incapable of calm discussion, then there is no need to continue, for you have no hope to win with emotion against logic. Perhaps return to this discussion when you are capable of avoiding personal slurs.
Fascism is merely an extreme of what objectivism leads towards. Fascism is the extreme right wing. In practice and majority of followers, objectivism in this modern world tends towards the right wing, and so has taken on other political ideals which run deeper and stronger, such as social conservatism and economic liberalism. A tendency taken to an extreme becomes the extreme itself, and that is what some objectivists, unfortunately, are all too capable of doing.
I've addressed this in my larger argument at the top of this post. In summary for your reference, objectivism has already failed its first practical political test, that is in creating a mass following which actually distills in a pure form the beliefs of Rand. If it cannot even pass that first phase of belief, then as a philosophy it is utterly useless.
Theory is beautiful, fact is uglier, and a philosopher that denies this is living in a pipe dream. Going by my own thoughts, and indeed yours, Ayn Rand was exactly such a philosopher.
i hated the last book fuck all happened how are they going to make this a two partner i can sum it up in a few senices
every evry one you liked dies
the go camping look for meaningless crap that it useless in the and
voldamort is killed by his own wand
and the eploge is the wort slap in the face ever
every evry one you liked dies
the go camping look for meaningless crap that it useless in the and
voldamort is killed by his own wand
and the eploge is the wort slap in the face ever
Am I the only person in this world who thinks the harry potter movies are awful? Sure there are some intersting parts but its all the same. Daniel Radcliff has no personality in any of the films, even when he's drunken that luck potion in this movie, he still seems as bland as a piece of sand paper. Nothing happens in this movie, and when something does happen, its over before you can say "finally". The third was the worst but this isn't that far behind.
I would go with this. If you care about having the film ruined, then youve either read the book or had someone else spoil it for you already. I havent read the last one as i just stopped caring and know pretty much all the importtant goings on.Izzil said:
I have two things to say.
1. On spoilers. I actually went to see this with 3 people who have only watched the movies and not read the books, some people don't read. So it was hard for me having read them to not say anything, but Harry Potter does have a fan base that has yet to read the books as well. So the spoiler this, it's fair.
2. Nextly, I almost liked this review, it could have been good but you left a sour taste in my mouth with the entire Goth reference and stereotyping. I don't personally believe in witchcraft or anything, but I have a roomate who practices Wicka (sp?) as a religion and literlly almost tore the house down and ripped stuff up when she heard that come off my computer. I think you'd be a little better off in your reviews to let's say, not sterotype or do something that could generally insult a population. Keep it clean, friendly, and fun ... it's when your reviews end up good ... que UP.
1. On spoilers. I actually went to see this with 3 people who have only watched the movies and not read the books, some people don't read. So it was hard for me having read them to not say anything, but Harry Potter does have a fan base that has yet to read the books as well. So the spoiler this, it's fair.
2. Nextly, I almost liked this review, it could have been good but you left a sour taste in my mouth with the entire Goth reference and stereotyping. I don't personally believe in witchcraft or anything, but I have a roomate who practices Wicka (sp?) as a religion and literlly almost tore the house down and ripped stuff up when she heard that come off my computer. I think you'd be a little better off in your reviews to let's say, not sterotype or do something that could generally insult a population. Keep it clean, friendly, and fun ... it's when your reviews end up good ... que UP.
i just got back from seeing this and it was bloody awful... they took out the good battles and replaced it with awkward teenage angst and bad acting...
So how is being selfish with your own property leading to violence with someone else? true selfishness can only take place with your own property if it with someone else property its called coveting. There is a difference. So i have to ask how is being selfish violent.Silva said:
Yet again calling us Fascist is untrue. Fascism is still a form of government where the STATE runs everything, and everything works for the benefit of the state. While Objectivism believes that the role of government should be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkSXqFUtKD4&feature=PlayList&p=D688153FDB922DE8&index=11 (watch from 6:50 till the end).
So how are we Fascist?
While Objectivism is the philosophy for libertarianism. since we are libertarians not neo-cons we actually voted against all recent American wars. (you know like Ron Paul)
So again how are we fascist and when we are libertarian?
And i love when people try to say and argument is invalid because of spelling. All they are trying to do is avoid the last point made.