Originally posted by RobtardSo now I'm using TI ?
Do find it reprehensible how you try and use TI, quano.Anyhow, back on topic. Do see that Colin Farrell's in the cast, that's a definitive positive at least.
Yes. If you want to prefer Potterverse to the Lotr then proclaim it now. I don't discourage anyone to enjoy the magical world of Harry Potter. It's great.
Looks great.
Originally posted by ares834
YouTube videoLooks great.
will go see
Originally posted by Robtard
This will definitely make loads of money; there's a huge ocean of HP fanboys/girls to support this alone, besides bringing in new people to the franchise.Will it be lackluster children's fantasy like the other HP films though. That is the question.
"Lackluster children's fantasy"?
Alright, here's the deal: Harry Potter is not marketed to children. Its marketed to adolescent and adult audiences. The original movies were never marketed as or labelled children's films. The first two films were considered family films. Just like any Star Wars film that's ever existed, yet no one seems to want to admit that Star Wars is meant for a younger audience than Harry Potter. It is. And that's a fact.
The thematics and the contextual stuff that Harry Potter covers goes above and beyond what most big blockbuster franchises today cover. So please be quiet. No one who actually understands good film would call Harry Potter a "lackluster children's fantasy". The films are almost all rated PG-13, for one, a rating that pretty much zero children's films get. So your rationale for calling them children's films is opaque and nonsensical, especially because films like Star Wars, and films part of the Marvel cinematic universe are marketed to children far more exclusively and consistently than Harry Potter is, and they resemble "lackluster children's sci-fi" far more than Harry Potter resembles a "lackluster children's fantasy."
Films 3-8, and to an extent, the whole franchise, are quite bleak, dark, and violent for films as patronized as they are. By the way, have you heard the term "YA fiction"? That's what Harry Potter is. It's not marketed to children whatsoever, and none of the films really looked like they were, with the possible exception of the first two. Even then, not really at all.
The story literally narritavizes a youths coming of age and his experiences with war and death, while dealing with some other, often heavy adolescent/life issues in the process. The main theme is death. And, um, you do realize the films are all certified fresh on RT, with sky high ratings across the board, and 12 Oscar nominations under its belt? JK Rowling has always maintained she wrote this franchise for teens and their parents. Not young children. And for the most part, it's not been marketed to them.
And on the subject of this being a lackluster children's fantasy...Harry Potter never was, so don't expect this to be. JK Rowling always writes dark stories, if you're aware of her work at all. Plus, there's adults her, not teenagers. What about this film, or the Harry Potter franchise in general, even begins to warrant such a stupid, ignorant, patronizing question?
LoL, look at this fan-person flip out over their precious. Harry Potter was and is "young adult" literature and by extension film, the fact that it gathered a large adult fan base after the fact does not change that. Young adults are generally considered between ages 12-18; sometimes younger. So yes, Harry Potter is a children's franchise as that is its prime target; that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it as an adult though.
Consider yourself schooled; no need to thank me, you're welcome.
edit: oh, you're probably just a future spammer, nvm
Originally posted by RobtardCalling Harry Potter a children's film is like calling Gran Torino an old man's film, yes it stars an old man but that doesn't mean it's geared towards old men. Is Stand By Me also a children's film those standards, I mean it stars children
LoL, look at this fan-person flip out over their precious. Harry Potter was and is "young adult" literature and by extension film, the fact that it gathered a large adult fan base after the fact does not change that. Young adults are generally considered between ages 12-18; sometimes younger. So yes, Harry Potter is a children's franchise as that is its prime target. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it as an adult though.Consider yourself schooled; no need to thank me, you're welcome.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Calling Harry Potter a children's film is like calling Gran Torino an old man's film, yes it stars an old man but that doesn't mean it's geared towards old men. Is Stand By Me also a children's film those standards, I mean it stars children
Your point is false, Harry Potter isn't a children's franchise just because it has children in it, nor did I make that connection above.
Maybe reread what I said?
Originally posted by RobtardPigeonholing a movie into a specific demographic does it a disservice. The reason HP became a prolific franchise is because it was very accessible to children but ultimately dealt with things adults could relate with. Had it been a children's film the audience would've outgrown the movies in the span of 8 sequels.
Your point is false, Harry Potter isn't a children's franchise just because it has children in it.
Originally posted by Firefly218I know and what's ironic is Star Wars is a kids movie according to Lucas. Robtard is nothing more than a dishonest troll.
Pigeonholing a movie into a specific demographic does it a disservice. The reason HP became a prolific franchise is because it was very accessible to children but ultimately dealt with things adults could relate with. Had it been a children's film the audience would've outgrown the movies in the span of 8 sequels.
Originally posted by Robtard
Most Disney animated films, which I've been a fan of myself for decades, Lion King, Aladdin, Little Mermaid, Lilo & Stitch etc have elements that adults can relate too and are very popular with adults, that doesn't change the fact that the films are namely children's films and targeted as such
Are you kidding me?
Those films do not have the adult elements that Harry Potter has, are all animated properties, and are all marketed to a much younger audience than Harry Potter is.
I never knew a G rated film about a cuddly space alien could be compared to a PG-13 rated urban fantasy franchise about death and coming of age.
You are aware Harry Potter's most marketed to audience are between the ages of 15 and 30?
It's much the same case with Star Wars, but guys, even Star Wars is meant for a younger audience than Potter, and is marketed to that audience more consistently. Harry Potter has been marketed as a fantasy series for adults just as much as its been marketed as a fantasy series for teens. It's hardly ever been marketed to young children, a rarity for a 30 billion dollar entertainment brand these days. Harry Potter has been able to maintain a relative maturity in marketing that a lot of major entertainment brand blockbusters haven't.
But seriously? Animated Disney fairy tales do not have the same amount of adult/questionable dark content, and that's clear. Those films have always been written and marketed to little kids, and little kids only. Harry Potter has only ever really been marketed to teen and adult audiences. It's apples and oranges.
Dealing with death, separation of family and personal responsibility are not "adult" elements? LoLz. That's only the Lion King.
Anyhow, you're clearly wrong as noted in my first reply to you. The first book is aimed at kids as young as seven. Stop being so effing sensitive about loving Harry Potter and trying to justify it, it's okay, as noted.