Hmm, I sincerely hope that my posts haven't come accross as being hard on anyone, because that certainly was never my intent. If my posts did come accross that way I do apologize. I was merely trying to help us all understand what we were trying to say and noting how I think some of the confusion came about.

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: The.Relic ]</p>

I haven't read the books so i dont know if i want to see the movie, but there are cool special effects though [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by The.Relic:
Hmm, I sincerely hope that my posts haven't come accross as being hard on anyone, because that certainly was never my intent. If my posts did come accross that way I do apologize. I was merely trying to help us all understand what we were trying to say and noting how I think some of the confusion came about.

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: The.Relic ]<hr></blockquote>

No, no, not at all, you are the same ol' softy you always have been [img]smile.gif[/img] , I do have to admit that I am suprised by the vehemence of those who have not even seen the movie, or read the books - they seem to be the only ones disparaging it. - I
still encourage everyone who is a fantasy fan

you purists note - (they do have a pretty good goblin(s) at Gringott's Bank, and the Centaur and the Cerebrus are done as well as any I've seen, and better than most, the baby dragon and all the Hall Ghosts original, go SEE it and then come back with intelligent comments [img]tongue.gif[/img]

to borrow a kid or just go, I had a blast, and one other advantage - if you think you know enough to understand the book after seeing the movie - you got about 25% of the content, with about 60% of the meaning - the movie will motivate you to read the book, which is the original reward - I am so happy with how much better Amanda is reading since I started reading this to her, and it has given us another thing in common that will last throughout her life as well, hopefully she will become a book worm like her old man :rolleyes:

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: J.J. ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Grand-Ranger:
I am not closing my mind.

I am just saying LotR and DND, thats what fantasy is.
<hr></blockquote>

Re-read the above.. Come on now.. Fantasy is ANYTHING fantastic. Fantasy covers a WIDE range of things, NOT just D&D or LotR.. Come on.. Go look up the word Fantasy and read it.

If you think that D&D and LotR are what fantasy is, and 'that's it', then, yes, you ARE closing your mind.

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Ziroc ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by The.Relic:
As humans, we are fond of breaking every subject into sub-groups and often insisting that they are not related. We rarely think of Science Fiction or Romance novels as fantasy, but in fact, they are. The following is the Websters Dictionay online definition of fantasy.

fan·ta·sy (fnt-s, -z)
n. pl. fan·ta·sies
The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy. See Synonyms at imagination.
Something, such as an invention, that is a creation of the fancy.
A capricious or fantastic idea; a conceit.

Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements.
An example of such fiction.
An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need.
An unrealistic or improbable supposition.
Music. See fantasia.
A coin issued especially by a questionable authority and not intended for use as currency.
Obsolete. A hallucination.

We are all entitled to our own preferences in taste, but with all due respect, Harry Potter is as much fantasy as is Star Wars, or the dream I had last night of Angelina Jolie.<hr></blockquote>


Thank You!!!! :D

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Your all missing my point.

Harry Potter isnt the kind of fantasy that should be grouped with things like DL and FR and LotR and The Death Dealer serries.
<hr></blockquote>

Who said we're 'grouping' anything? You said it wasn't FANTASY.

-----
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
And Z,

You said Trolls can onlky be killed with Fire, isnt that being close minded to DnD?<hr></blockquote>

No, it's not. In MANY MANY stories, Trolls have been killed by fire, it's not something D&D 'created'. lol. Haven't you read any non-AD&D type fantasy novels?

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Ziroc ]</p>

Still have to wait another 10 days for the movie here in Oz, but I am REALLY looking forward to it ...

I'm not really fussed whether Harry Potter is good/bad/non-classic fantasy or whatever. They are just damm fine entertaining reads for children and adults.

IMHO, why Harry Potter has been so successful.

The books are a blend of three classic story themes:

• The "school boarding house" novel. ( As done so well by Enid Blyton and Anthony Buckeridge )
  Magic, wizards, and witches.( always popular !! )
  Detective mystery( to add lasting interest )

The books don't patronize.

They are written at a level that almost begs for the reader look for the hidden and not-so-hidden pokes at life stereotypes and absurdities.

The continuity between books is excellent.

On the downside, I am dismayed that Harry Potter has fallen prey to the evils of saturation merchandising, especially the contract with Coca Cola. I read that Coke paid Warner Bros more for the merchandising rights, than it cost WB to make the movie !!

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Pangur Ban ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ziroc:
Your all missing my point.

Harry Potter isnt the kind of fantasy that should be grouped with things like DL and FR and LotR and The Death Dealer serries.


Who said we're 'grouping' anything? You said it wasn't FANTASY.

-----
And Z,

You said Trolls can onlky be killed with Fire, isnt that being close minded to DnD?<hr></blockquote>

No, it's not. In MANY MANY stories, Trolls have been killed by fire, it's not something D&D 'created'. lol. Haven't you read any non-AD&D type fantasy novels?[/QB][/QUOTE]

LOL, tooo funnneee, Z, good point, and what are you doing up so late? [img]graemlins/nono.gif[/img] :D

Heh, speaking of Trolls, who prefers the graphic portrayal of Trolls in the;
1) Classical artist presentations such as "Brothers Grimm", etcetera?
2) More current varieties such as AD&D and BG2?

I have to admit that I am somewhat progressionist regarding art, so I can cheerfully maintain my nestalgiac appreciation of the classical as well as revell in the newer imaginative efforts.

First, I have read each of the first three books 15 times, and the 4th 11. I enjoy them IMMENSELY! and they are, IMHO, great books for kids and adults. I have also read many DnD type fantasy, and am a huge LOTR fan.

Second, thanx J.J. for the review. I am going to see the movie Wednesday with some friends, and am glad to hear it wasn't totally blasphemous. :D

Third, you can dislike Harry if you want, but it IS fantasy! It is a different style of writing from that of Tolkien and others like him, but it is still within the fantasy genre, and actually, I think it was nice to see a GOOD fantasy that wasn't a Tolkien imitation(not that those are all bad, but they are all so similiar).

[img]smile.gif[/img]