Harry Potter and why its world building is so boring? - Avada Kedavra vs M16

Stardust

Ģιίττεર ƣƲεεɴ
kiwifarms.net
so is she just stingy with the rights or what? because you would think someone would have adapted it by now, same with dragonriders of pern.
Earthsea has two adaptations. One was an animated film that goes in it's own direction, and she isn't too fond of it. The other was a SyFy Channel movie that combined the first two books, but it is a jumbled mess. LeGuin dislikes it.

With the animated film, she was led to believe Hayao Mizayaki would direct it. Instead, Hayao's son directed it. That one I kind of understand, but the SyFy situation seems to have been, well, SyFy being SyFy. LeGuin sold the rights, but under the condition she be a consultant. SyFy did not consult her.
 

Freya

i wanna go where the down boys go
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I think the first movie was very well done in terms of building a setting and making Hogwarts seem alive. Disclosure: I haven't read the books and don't plan on it. I just find this criticism interesting considering the setting in the first movie stuck out to me
 

Dr. Henry Armitage

Head librarian at Miskatonic University
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Yeah, time travel only works if you've plotted it all out ahead of time and made sure you are consistent. See: Babylon 5
If I remember right in one of the books she tries to explain that time-turners can't be used because they were all destroyed in the Battle of the Department of Mysteries. Id call that an attempt at a ret con but when you think about it its more of a plot hole. Why were all the time turners kept in one room on easily knocked over shelves? Do other countries have time turners? if so why can't the ministry use those to save their own time turners? if not why was the whole worlds supply of time turners held in the ministry?
 

XYZpdq

fbi most wanted sskealeaton
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
If I remember right in one of the books she tries to explain that time-turners can't be used because they were all destroyed in the Battle of the Department of Mysteries. Id call that an attempt at a ret con but when you think about it its more of a plot hole. Why were all the time turners kept in one room on easily knocked over shelves? Do other countries have time turners? if so why can't the ministry use those to save their own time turners? if not why was the whole worlds supply of time turners held in the ministry?
From what the movies show us basically everything in the Wizarding World will explode with the slightest nudge like the consoles on Star Trek
 

discombobulate

kiwifarms.net
If I remember right in one of the books she tries to explain that time-turners can't be used because they were all destroyed in the Battle of the Department of Mysteries. Id call that an attempt at a ret con but when you think about it its more of a plot hole. Why were all the time turners kept in one room on easily knocked over shelves? Do other countries have time turners? if so why can't the ministry use those to save their own time turners? if not why was the whole worlds supply of time turners held in the ministry?
Yes, they were all on one shelf that got knocked over in the intelligently named "Time Room," but they didn't break. Instead, at least one flipped over and put them all in a time loop of getting eternally flipped over. Other countries apparently still have their time turners. That could be an interesting thing in another (not HP) book if it happened entirely differently, but it's just stupid in HP. Since that loop is apparently possible, why didn't they keep separate stocks and not put them somewhere where they could fall over, or at least if they fell over that the height isn't enough to make them flip? Even wizard governments are incompetent, I guess.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Koby_Fish

jje100010001

kiwifarms.net
I think the first movie was very well done in terms of building a setting and making Hogwarts seem alive. Disclosure: I haven't read the books and don't plan on it. I just find this criticism interesting considering the setting in the first movie stuck out to me
Given the way that the cinematic visuals are essentially canon in the eyes of most fans, the quality of WB' prop and set design can't be understated.

Harry Potter is popular especially amongst Millenniums and Zoomers because it's a poorly written entitlement fantasy.
I think that the mundane, simple settings + teenage school drama + the power trip fantasy aspect is what makes it appealing. They're like you! But they have to hide their power level!

The holes in the plotline also unintentionally allowed readers to speculate on meaning and fill them in with their own fantasies- I would argue that the filling-in of those holes with mediocre expansion plotlines has diminished the series ever so slightly.
 

NyQuilninja

drink me
kiwifarms.net
Given the way that the cinematic visuals are essentially canon in the eyes of most fans, the quality of WB' prop and set design can't be understated.


I think that the mundane, simple settings + teenage school drama + the power trip fantasy aspect is what makes it appealing. They're like you! But they have to hide their power level!

The holes in the plotline also unintentionally allowed readers to speculate on meaning and fill them in with their own fantasies- I would argue that the filling-in of those holes with mediocre expansion plotlines has diminished the series ever so slightly.
Going politely disagree with you
Harry Potter the boy who had no family friends money and nobody like suddenly becomes the the most important richest wizard in all the lands. People want be his friend he finds out his family were super important the headmaster is his bff and so on. It's a lazy entitlement fantasy.
 

discombobulate

kiwifarms.net
Going politely disagree with you
Harry Potter the boy who had no family friends money and nobody like suddenly becomes the the most important richest wizard in all the lands. People want be his friend he finds out his family were super important the headmaster is his bff and so on. It's a lazy entitlement fantasy.
The super fans don't identify with Harry but with Hermione, Snape, or some other "smart" character. Harry is relatively low-tier in the fan-fiction scene, only above his dad and Ron, each because they're "dumb." I don't even think it's an entitlement fantasy like a Disney film is; Harry has to go back to being a nobody every summer, can't actually use his money, is pretty average as a wizard, his family is dead and isn't special aside from him (did you get that idea from the family friends who waxed lyrical? Nobody else talks about them), and is hated by nearly everybody for all of the second book and then in the fifth and sixth books when everything went to shit anyway. He's only special in two ways: his relationship with Voldemort and being good at sports, which really isn't something that resonates with the super fans. Cinderella starts in the same circumstances and becomes a princess; Harry ends up a policeman doing office work.
 

NyQuilninja

drink me
kiwifarms.net
The super fans don't identify with Harry but with Hermione, Snape, or some other "smart" character. Harry is relatively low-tier in the fan-fiction scene, only above his dad and Ron, each because they're "dumb." I don't even think it's an entitlement fantasy like a Disney film is; Harry has to go back to being a nobody every summer, can't actually use his money, is pretty average as a wizard, his family is dead and isn't special aside from him (did you get that idea from the family friends who waxed lyrical? Nobody else talks about them), and is hated by nearly everybody for all of the second book and then in the fifth and sixth books when everything went to shit anyway. He's only special in two ways: his relationship with Voldemort and being good at sports, which really isn't something that resonates with the super fans. Cinderella starts in the same circumstances and becomes a princess; Harry ends up a policeman doing office work.
Harry Potter is a lazy entitlement fantasy I stand by this also it's poorly written
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Koby_Fish

Doctor Placebo

Soleimani's back. Tell a friend.
kiwifarms.net
I definitely agree with everyone that J.K was writing the story by the seat if her pants; adding new things last minute, or retconning something that happened in a previous book or chapter.

The story has enough mystery in it to keep kids interested and for adults to be slightly amused, but I do believe I have read fanfics that have done a better job in describing J.K's magic in greater details.

And lets not forget about the movies. At least for the first three (Goblet of Fire was when things started to get...weird), the directors did an amazing job in illustrating the wackiness in the Wizarding World, which probably contribute to why so many people believed the series had great world building when in reality, it really didn't.
Things started getting weird with Goblet of Fire because it was an adaptation of an exponentially longer book than the first three, cut to fill the exact same amount of screen time.

I suppose at the very least it got kids to read. Before Harry Potter the most kids ever read was a Garfield strip. Maybe Goosebumps for the more educated kids.
You must not have been much of a reader growing up, but that doesn't mean everyone else was like that. Before Harry Potter there was not only Goosebumps but Animorphs, which was a really big deal when it first came it. Hell, for a while the hype for a new book on the playground was basically like the hype for a new episode of a hot TV show. Sure, each book is much shorter than a Harry Potter book, but there were a lot more books. Over 60. The problem was it didn't have the staying power HP did. Kids outgrew the series before it ended and lost interest. Which is funny, because as wacky as it often got, Animorphs handled darker subject matter a lot better than HP, for the most part.

Meanwhile the more "educated" (ie-smart) kids were tackling or attempting to tackle stuff like Redwall, The Hobbit, or Ender's Game. Kids who really like to read, inevitably go for the books that are written for older audiences. This used to be a commonly understood phenomenon. Like in the movie Matilda, the little girl reads books by Ian Fleming.

Kids reading isn't something Harry Potter started. We have many generations of classic children's literature that disproves that. Everything from The Wizard of Oz and Alice and Wonderland to The Chronicles of Narnia to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Arguably the real legacy of HP "getting kids to read" has been a generation of dysfunctional adult children weirdos obsessed with wish fulfillment YA literature, as has been discussed on the YA Bookgate thread. Even when they read another book, they never really read another book.
 
Tags
None