What would you rank the OG films? What’s your favorite and least favorite? https://people.com/daniel-radcliffe-ranks-harry-potter-movies-11952247
The writing is genuinely bad and the stereotypes that veer into overt bigotry are all over those books. But we can tell trans people their opinions are objectively wrong. Very cool!
You are of course welcome to your opinion, but don't act like your original post was a measured or nuanced critique of the art itself, and at all in agreement with the majority opinion of the series, especially at the height of its popularity. I was never into Harry Potter and don't / won't support JK Rowling, but I also don't have to agree with your take that the entire franchise was shit. I can scrub it from books I'll read / movies I'll watch, while still recognizing the immense impact it had on story telling, publishing and hollywood. Also, I didn't know you were trans (how would I?), nor does it make any difference whatsoever to my statement.
As someone who is currently suffering through the movies, they are bad whether or not you take Rowling's transphobia into it.
I have gotten through four and a half so far and the Cuaron one was noticeably better than the rest. Any impact that the series had on storytelling is a net negative.
Where did I glaze (hate that term) the writing? I just said it wasn't objectively shit. If you all want to argue about the merits of using the word objective and tell me that there's not a single piece of art that can be considered objectively anything, then whatever, I won't have that argument as it's just a dumb one. It's also not worth continuing down an argument specifically about defending HP as a whole anyway. We all know where every single conversation about this franchise for the remainder of time is going to end up. There's a dividing line on if you're able to find merit in what already exists, and a further dividing line of if you're able to support anything further in the universe. I only came in here as I look at the threads that are bumped to see what ya'll are chatting about. I apologize if it was offensive of me to try to say that current transphobia doesn't negate any artistic / cultural value or impact the series had in it's heyday. I really don't care, or hold the series dear. I missed the book craze at the time, as I thought reading was lame (I was so wrong on that point lol) and I saw the movies as it's just what you did each summer. Again, apologies for any offense. Nothing further to say on the topic.
It is not really an argument because there is a correct and incorrect. There is no such thing as objectively good or bad in art. Where is the rubric?
I disagree, and think people need to recognize when their personal taste (in all forms of media these days) just doesn't line up with the societal baseline that's been established and accept it. It doesn't mean you're wrong to like or dislike something compared to that baseline, but comments of 'mid' and 'overrated' and bashing things (or vice versa) that are critical and cultural darlings, and fighting to convince people to see it your way is often just a waste of time. There are things that I absolutely love or hate, and could list of a variety of reasons why, but I probably would still be able to objectively rate it, while still finding it enjoyable / unenjoyable to my tastes. If that doesn't make sense to you, that's okay. It's just how I see a lot of discussions going on social media these days around, well, just about everything.
Sorry, but this is a crazy take. Art criticism doesn't exist to be an echo chamber. There should absolutely be pieces written and discussion that is critical of things that are universally beloved, or praising art/media that the writer feels should be re-evaluated. This is how art is challenged and evolves over time. To never go against the grain because it's a "waste of time" would mean getting whatever baseline slop in accepted by the majority of consumers every single time. The word objective doesn't have anything to do with whether most people like/accept something or not. Those are two different concepts.
I'm not saying you can't discuss it on a scale, but to say a 25 billion dollar franchise that includes books, movies a theme park and now a TV show is a 'shit franchise' from top to bottom, should be an objectively extreme take that's clearly biased and isn't a conclusion drawn from just evaluating the product(s) themselves. As a franchise at the very least, you could set an OBJECTIVE scale for success in which it'd place highly. If we literally can't agree that you can't take an aspect of a piece of art, and set a scale for that component and objectively determine where it falls on that scale, then I don't know. Nothing is above or beyond critique or praise, but this idea that people are 'wrong' because you found something 'mid' or 'overrated' or 'bad' and you're the one who's right, and not everyone else, is where the concept of personal taste seems to be lost these days and why it's so frustrating to find people who want to discuss media in good faith without an extreme bias. AGAIN, I am not focusing on Harry Potter. That's a whole different beast that's emotionally and politically charged. Just in general... EDIT - I agree with your last statement, but people will literally say a movie sucks because they don't like the genre it's in, and argue till blue in the face that it's bad. You don't think a fair discussion with that person should involve how it performs within the genre standards, so they can at least be nudged towards accepting that it's good but just not for them?
I think you're trying to have two very different conversations and I don't think the original post was attempting to evaluate the financial or cultural impact of the franchise. I also just think this is an insane hill to die on when discussing Harry Potter with a trans person if you don't even care about the franchise lol
Helloelloallo, I say this with kindness in my heart because I know you mean no harm but I am begging you to get better at reading the room.
We are certainly having 2 different conversations. And i already apologized to them (and i meant it), and am not trying to convince them to like or reevaluate Harry Potter with any kind of nuance. I didnt know they were trans (how would i have?) when i started the conversation. I understand that HP talk is basically banned everywhere else, and the community as a whole is very respectful of that unspoken rule IE - the video game thread. I thought this was just general chat about the franchise and i was fine to disagree in response to a negative post. Ive already backtracked / said sorry. The other conversation, fair enough. I think you absolutely can and should apply objective scales to media, while also being fine when your personal opinion doesn't allign with those results. Taste vs merit and all that.. Anyway, sorry.
I think for the most part, the movies get progressively better and they're almost in reverse chronological order for me. I don't think any of them were particularly good actors from the start and had to grow into the roles. It's amazing that the majority of the cast is still going, and finding projects that fit their niche. Some are obviously more famous than others, but I'd have bet that a few of them would have just fizzled out as 'well, they fit the part, but it turns out they can't actually act'. The 6th suffers from the 'half a movie' syndrome that so many split final installments suffer from. If you don't already know the arc, it's very unsatisfying to get half a story with no real beginning, middle or end and that goes for just about every 'the big book is too big for a movie so lets split it in half' route.
Up until now, I had no idea Phantom's post was a response to Wade because I have Wade blocked, so to me it looked like Phantom just made their post out of nowhere, which I was totally okay with, but now it makes even more sense.