Here it is (about halfway down the page):

 

http://screenrant.com/international-trailer-harry-potter-halfblood-prince-rob-4052/

 

 

Great trailer, can't wait for the movie!

HEY NICK!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D. Thanks! :D

Hey and you're welcome!:cool:

Hey and you're welcome!:cool:

 

:dance:

great trailer!

I posted this a week ago in the *I Love Harry Potter* thread....

Looks great! :D

I posted this a week ago in the *I Love Harry Potter* thread....

I know, but I thought it should have its own thread

Looking good compared to what OotP was :D

Fair enough, it is an excellent trailer really, I'm excited by the way the film is shaping up by what I've heard an seen, even if it comes with a fictionalized burrow fight scene and an abbreviated end battle. But I'm convinced it's gonna blow the other film's away (it better after 9 more months).

YAY! I absolutely can't wait. It looks fantastic. :D

Why oh why must July be so far away. :(

I don't get, at all, why Harry Potter is so popular...

^ I don't get your brain. :tongue:

 

Here it is (about halfway down the page):

 

http://screenrant.com/international-trailer-harry-potter-halfblood-prince-rob-4052/

 

 

Great trailer, can't wait for the movie!

Eeee! :dance: Thank-you. :nice:

 

I posted this a week ago in the *I Love Harry Potter* thread....

Well there's way behind people like me who dread threads like that in case of spoilers (I've already heard a couple of the big ones and I'm bitter), so it's great to hear it this way.

Well it's not amazingly written, it's not that captivating of a story, it's just a generic fantasy tale, why is it more popular than, a probably better, alternative?

Well it's not amazingly written, it's not that captivating of a story, it's just a generic fantasy tale, why is it more popular than, a probably better, alternative?

 

Be thankful it isn't "sparkly vampires" Twilight that has everyone's attention

Well it's not amazingly written, it's not that captivating of a story, it's just a generic fantasy tale, why is it more popular than, a probably better, alternative?

 

Harry Potter is one of the few novel series I've found in which the content matures and improves as the reader and the characters progress/grow older, something almost unique to that series. Looking back, the first few books weren't impressively written, but at that age I was more struck by the realistic/relatable nature of the characters and just the seemingly perfect way the world is constructed. Most other fantasy novels/series that I've delved into feature unrealistic characters with exaggerated traits and unexplained oddities. While that may be the appeal of such books for some, Harry Potter hooked me because so much of it parallels the real world. The characters are believable in a way. And by the last three, four books of the series, the writing improved tremendously, and I have enormous respect for the stylistic way Rowling designs and describes the plot and story.

 

Maybe I'm naive in saying I don't find it particularly generic or poorly written. But if you know of an alternative that absolutely blows the series away, I will surely buy it. I'm not trying to convince you that everyone should adore the series, just replying to your question of why people like me prefer it.

Is it not just a case of it was the first book series you actually read?

 

Narnia is so much better than Harry Potter.

Actually I'll have you know I read the lion, the witch, and the wardrobe before I ever knew of Harry Potter, I even started Prince Caspian, but lost interest early on, I found the series a bit fairy tale-ish with the way the giants, creatures and the story were presented.

Granted I was quite a bit younger at the time, but Harry Potter struck me as a change from your typical fantasy tale. I later read the Lord of the rings series starting with the hobbit, and enjoyed those quite a lot, but the Harry Potter series has always remained my favorite, probably because it doesn't seem quite as farfetched or outlandish. The wizarding world is directly parallel the muggle world, they have sports, shopping centers, a modernist form of government (as opposed to kings, queens and princesses), stores, a boarding school, and characters presented in a realistic, real-world fashion. The only real divide is the element of magic. Feel free to analyze and criticize it on a literary level, in several ways it looks up to classic novels like LOTR's and perhaps the chronicles of Narnia. But I have much greater appreciation for the HP series on a personal level, in that, the way Rowling imagined the series allowed me to care a lot more about the characters than the children in Narnia, or Frodo and Bilbo Baggins.

That's what I don't like about HP, it's as if I could have come up with it, I just don't think it's good enough to warrant the huge success and fame it has

I don't think it's particularly lacking in the imagination department, I for one am impressed how she took the time to put boundaries, rules, limits on the way the wizarding world operates. There are very few loopholes, and she goes back explain things for the sake of being realistic and keeping the world believable. key aspects of the last book were planned out from the very beginning of the first book. Personally I think that takes a lot of skill, and most of all, I particularly like her writing style, the way the plot is organized and particularly the many dimensions of the characters.

Is she the greatest writer in the world? hardly.

Are there great, perhaps better fantasy books that suffered due to the hype of harry potter mania? certainly.

As much as I loved the series from the start, it was probably blown out of proportion by the hype, especially in the later years when the movies came about.

I'm always uncomfortable when something I like becomes really popular, Coldplay is a perfect example of that. Whenever Viva la Vida comes on at a party, everyone's like "I love this song!" What I hate is how many of the same people react the same way to music I have zero respect for, and I hate putting myself on the same plane as people who soak up whatever pop radio churns out. But of course Coldplay is a great, talented band in it's own right, and I feel kind of the same way about J.K. Rowling as a writer. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's necessarily bad, even though somethings just become too popular by any standard.

 

Anyway, I'll shut up with the apologetics.

Although the end of the epilogue fails in the last book.

 

Is basically "and they all lived happily ever after".

I agree I wish the epilogue was rewritten, I think she actually wrote that part near the time she wrote "prisoner of azkaban", however, why the three main characters survived, deathly hallows was still a bit of a blood bath of seemingly pointless deaths, not to mention the unexpected exits of sirius and dumbledore in the previous two books.

Is it not just a case of it was the first book series you actually read?

 

Narnia is so much better than Harry Potter.

I've read those. They are a little different than the HP books, they were written in a different time and more for younger people to read

 

 

That's what I don't like about HP, it's as if I could have come up with it, I just don't think it's good enough to warrant the huge success and fame it has

I think it's just something unexplainable about the way Rowling writes that has captured so many people, myself included

 

Although the end of the epilogue fails in the last book.

 

Is basically "and they all lived happily ever after".

I thought it was good. And the whole thing with his hand going down and touching his scar was genious. It was a fresh new way of saying "happily ever after"

 

 

I agree I wish the epilogue was rewritten, I think she actually wrote that part near the time she wrote "prisoner of azkaban", however, why the three main characters survived, deathly hallows was still a bit of a blood bath of seemingly pointless deaths, not to mention the unexpected exits of sirius and dumbledore in the previous two books.

I liked the epilogue, but I do agree there were too many pointless deaths. Sirius I was okay with, Dumbledore had to go for the story, even Lupin and Tonks I can tolerate, but why Fred Weasley? He didn't have to die, and now the Weasley twins are no more. Kill off Bill and Charlie and Percy if you must kill Weasleys, no one likes Percy anyway:P

 

And why Hedwig????

 

 

I guess she was just trying to not make a corny book where all the main characters live, she was trying to shake things up a little.

Lol, I said pointless to prove a point that the books aren't shallow and predictable, and while I was sad when characters like Dobby and Hedwig died, I think that fact she included things like that sent a message about how the horrific nature of the conflict. It doesn't really hit home if only complete strangers get killed. In a conflict of that nature, deaths occur at random. I was particularly intrigued by how briefly she mentioned Lupin and Tonks. They were huge characters, yet the fact that they died was thrown out off handedly, and I think that was meant to capture how numb and desensitized Harry was to the death and destruction that surrounded him the whole night.