I never said otherwise. Those qualities obviously aren't the ones I'm talking about. You can say what you like, if you take this show less seriously than any drama that's not on HBO, Showtime, or AMC, then you're just flat out wrong. This show has that weight to it. The "We're not holding back...
I don't care whether the show is any sort of direct or consistent adaptation to the book at all. It hasn't been, and for the most part, I'm glad. But that part of my review isn't dedicated so much to "Oh this wasn't like the book grrr" so much as "Wow, that was a really retarded move. Why'd they...
Well well well, time for me to make a post about how I feel about this whole show and the entire season?
No matter how many bad things you can say about it, there is a certain unidentifiable quality of goodness in this show, as in all other AMC shows. It's more than production value, though...
Yeah, and I never really said anything to contradict that. I merely said that the movies don't have a lot to work with IE: when you're doing an adaptation you have to pay attention to what you're adapting so if it's not very good maybe that sucks for the movie? Also, time restrictions.
In summary: Harry Potter is fun, dumb escapism. The writing in the books sucks and the movies don't have a lot to work with on several levels. The seventh movies sucks. The third movie is awesome.
Neither. I'm actually attacking one of the loud, dumb audience members.
Edit: Although, I do disagree with you. How people respond to a movie has nothing to do with what a movie is. The Catcher in the Rye killed John Lennon, but I still think it's a great book.
True enough, but the counter-movement is even more annoying.
"Hey, I disagree with your opinion or the reasoning you used to develop it because-"
"OH SORRY, I FORGOT THE OPINION POLICE WERE HERE TO TELL ME HOW TO THINK AND WHAT I LIKE ISN'T GOOD. WELL SORRRRRY."