Am I the only person here who doesn't give a crap about Harry Potter?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I see a lot of you saying 'I read the first book..first couple books...for kids...' stuff like that. In all fairness, it's not any more fair to judge the whole series by the first book any more than you should judge the Beatles by "I Want to Hold Your Hand." Some guy told me one time he didn't know what the big fuss over the Beatles was, he thought they were just a bunch of childish boyband nonsense because all he'd really heard were the first few hits. Like the Beatles, Harry becomes much more complicated, interesting, and dark as time goes on. I am a late coming fan, and I too used to wonder what was so great about it, but once I got into it I couldn't stop. The first few books are aimed more at kids, and I do think it's cool the series is aimed at kids who will 'grow up' with Harry and get older as he does. But by now this story is so dark, so twisted, so scary and full of hidden meaning I can't imagine any kid understanding it, and the movies get much worse all the time and are getting harder ratings. The later stuff gets into a lot of the very same stuff that makes Star Wars and LOTR so good, and, though I didn't even believe this myself at one time, you are really missing out on something if you don't try the later stuff. And the ending is going to be awesome. Just a word from somebody who used to think they didn't care. It got me!
 
Bono's shades said:
I read the first book shortly before the first movie came out and was pretty underwhelmed.

I admit, J.K. Rowling is up to some fairly sophisticated stuff for a children's book. I just couldn't work up enough interest to keep reading.

I think my biggest problem was that as a character Harry is just so friggin' boring compared to just about anybody else in the story. Hermione and Snape and even Ron had 1,000 times more personality than him.

I tried to watch a couple of the movies, but the special effects were just too cheesy for me. And the way the theme music blatantly ripped off "Swan Lake" annoyed the crap out of me.

I feel like I should turn in my geek card or something.

(Ducks rotten tomatoes).

:tsk:

Although I share your dislike for HP and the media hype which surrounds it I am offended you have copied my thread in IO...

Thank you love_u2_adam for pointing out my thread:

love_u2_adam said:

You can expect a call from my lawyer... :wink:
 
Last edited:
Babydoll said:
I've never read a single book [...] Just don't get what all the fuss is about :shrug:

Er, here's a thought: could the reason for this be, perhaps, that you have never read a single book? :shrug: I've no problem with people judging Harry Potter if they've given the books a decent chance. But to gripe about the series without having read a single book... That's rather silly, if you ask me. You're like those people who judge U2's overall quality without even listening to a whole album.
 
gluey said:


And that is what scares the crap out of me with HP!! :yikes:

How is 45 year old men dressing as wizards at a book release any different than 45 year old women dressing as Macphisto for a U2 concert (OR a U2 tribute band show)????

I am not into the craze, but I haven't read any of the books. It IS good to see people reading books rather than being crazed by some lame television show though!
 
zoney! said:


How is 45 year old men dressing as wizards at a book release any different than 45 year old women dressing as Macphisto for a U2 concert (OR a U2 tribute band show)????


In my opinion, both are kinda creepy. :yikes:

I just don't dig harry potter. :yawn:
 
macphisto = what in Harry potter world?

WildHoneyAlways said:


In my opinion, both are kinda creepy. :yikes:


I am will not disagree!

I am just saying that there are a number of people right here on interference that are more fanatical about U2 than any creepy 45 year old male in a wizard suit is about Harry Potter.
 
gluey said:


:wave: Another kiwi right here!! I have nothing against Harry or JK Rowling....it's just that neither push my button. The whole HP craze is unreal....if not a little amusing...

Hi Gluey - glad I'm not the only underwhelmed NZer!
 
I've never read a Harry Potter book (and I love to read...) and I saw only the first movie. I'm not saying it's bad but I don't get all the excitmenta about it... Maybe one day I'll read a bokk and if I like it I'll read the others.
But I do love LOTR, in fact all Tolkien books.
 
zoney! said:


How is 45 year old men dressing as wizards at a book release any different than 45 year old women dressing as Macphisto for a U2 concert (OR a U2 tribute band show)????

I am not into the craze, but I haven't read any of the books. It IS good to see people reading books rather than being crazed by some lame television show though!

Right on the money as usual. Although I think all those folks sniping at Michiko Kakutani for giving the plot away or whatever should really just lighten up.

As for me...I've never read the books and I have no interest in reading them, because I'm just not big on fantasy books and stuff.
 
I've never gotten into the whole fantasy genre - I could not get into the LOTR books at all, ditto CS Lewis' Narnia Chronicles. Or The Golden Compass.

But for some reason, these succeeded where the others failed.
 
I love the whole fantasy genre when it comes books, I've read Tolkein, Terry Brooks, David Eddings, George R Martin, Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, David Farland, Margarett Weis and Tracy Hickman and Tad Williams to name a few...

For some reason Harry Potter has never appealed to me. I have tried reading the first book and I always get bored :slant:
 
I really don't get it. When I was growing up books like the Babysitters Club and Sweet Valley High were popular, but the hype never rose to the level of what we see with HP.

I did see the first two movies (a friend was a HP freak), and I will admit they were entertaining.

I am curious to read the whole series to see if it lives up to the hype.
 
JessicaAnn said:
I really don't get it. When I was growing up books like the Babysitters Club and Sweet Valley High were popular, but the hype never rose to the level of what we see with HP.

That's because HP is more akin to Star Wars and LOTR than those. It's a epic saga of good and evil, searches and battles, continuing for years. The books you mention are more comparable to mediocre daytime soaps, or made for Disney channel teen drama than these movies.


I am curious to read the whole series to see if it lives up to the hype.

originally posted by elevated_u2_fan

For some reason Harry Potter has never appealed to me. I have tried reading the first book and I always get bored

You really do have to see the later stuff. How many people here have said "I read the first book...lost me at the second book.." it takes until the fourth and fifth to really get what's going on. It's much deeper, and more complicated and very, very much darker than you'd ever suspect.

I say this not as a fan of the series all along, but as a very recent convert. People kept telling me I wasn't being fair and should give the later stuff a chance, and they were right.

Judging the entire HP saga by the first book is like judging the Beatles' career by "I Want to Hold Your Hand." :tsk:
 
Last edited:
The Sad Punk said:
... frankly, I don't consider Harry Potter to be on the same level as the Beatles, but that could just be me.

Well, actually, in terms of money and mania, it might just be....

but that's not what I was talking about. I'm saying the first book is kiddie and simple and twee, much like the Beatles' earlier albums, but the books, like the albums, become more complex, mature and dark as they go on. *and much better.
 
Bono's shades said:
I read the first book shortly before the first movie came out and was pretty underwhelmed.

I admit, J.K. Rowling is up to some fairly sophisticated stuff for a children's book. I just couldn't work up enough interest to keep reading.

I think my biggest problem was that as a character Harry is just so friggin' boring compared to just about anybody else in the story. Hermione and Snape and even Ron had 1,000 times more personality than him.

I tried to watch a couple of the movies, but the special effects were just too cheesy for me. And the way the theme music blatantly ripped off "Swan Lake" annoyed the crap out of me.

I feel like I should turn in my geek card or something.

(Ducks rotten tomatoes).


i agree.. never have been a HP fan.. and don't get all the hype about it but to each their own I guess. I have seen a couple of the movies but ...for me.. MEH....:|

Even my son, who is 9 going on 10 here isn't all that interested either.. :shrug:
 
Butterscotch said:


That's because HP is more akin to Star Wars and LOTR than those. It's a epic saga of good and evil, searches and battles, continuing for years. The books you mention are more comparable to mediocre daytime soaps, or made for Disney channel teen drama than these movies.


Well you lost me there ... I have never seen a Star Wars movie. Well, I saw half of one once, but I didn't care for it.

As for LOTR, the subject matter is not my cup of tea.

However if it's anything like the book Wicked (on which the musical is based), I might like it.
 
I read the first chapter of book one and couldn't go any further. It was all tripe to me. As far as kids' books go, it's probably alright - I can't understand how so many people over the age of 16 are so completely into this though.

That goes for LOTR, Star Trek, and Star Wars, too.

:confused:
 
DaveC said:
I can't understand how so many people over the age of 16 are so completely into this though.

I guess it's different for me because I started reading them at age twelve. :shrug:

But as Butterscotch says, don't judge Harry Potter based upon the first two or three books alone. They get a lot more complex the further you go.
 
Back
Top Bottom