Escape to the Movies: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Excellent and I totally agree.

But I thought that Mr. mediocrity may have attacked the writing team because the whole movie seemed a little... Metal Gear Solidy level of writing.

Even though it was pretty anti-climactic, that's the books fault. And it's a technique which works much better in a novels context.

Just think i should mention that Luna Lovegood is brilliant beyond belief and deserves her own book/movie.

Thank you for the "Heinlien as a post menaposal Rand" Also, is'nt kind of like the classic greek theatre where the plot is known by the audience in advance, and the purpose of the drama is to put a new spin on the story. A new twist in the knickers of the protaganist, as the gods look on capriciously.

Abedeus:
How very nice that you ruined the movie for anyone who has yet to watch it... I dunno, in a different country that has yet to premiere it?

You.

Don't.

Put.

SPOILERS

In a review. Especially something from the last few minutes of the movie.

Still, it's not that big of a discovery that if you didn't watch the first movie, you are not going to watch the 6th one... The general rule for ANY film or book series. Matrix, LotR, Star Wars...

edit: Not saying that you've ruined it for me, because I have read all the books (except for the 7th, I have it on my desk, waiting for the movie first to refresh my memory).

If you read all the books then why are you complaining about spoilers?

Most people who watch the films have either read the books are know hats going to happen via a friend who has read the book or via going on the internet so the stroy line is not going to hold any surprises. All the movies do is add speacial effects and provide a visual representation of the book.

Any way as for the review I guess it was not to bad if not a tad similar to ZP in its presenatation...

EDIT: Note that this is the first movie review i've seen on the Escapist so I apologise if my comparison to ZP is inaccurate.

Time for my two cents worth

I am blindly anti-HP (which is ironic since 3 of my 4 computers have been HP :p) and I got half dragged to this movie. And I thought it was fairly good... Considering the crappy story they have to hold too I mean COME ON! Evil, what are you thinking?! Hire a decent tactician, concentrate a little more on mindless slaughter a hell of a lot less on breaking windows and you'd mop the floor in 5 minutes flat!

Attempting to avoid as many spoilers as I can, the bit towards the end. Four or five high-power evil wizard break into Hogwarts and kill (someone important). Hmmm... What should we do now. Should we, perhaps, slaughter the population of the school thereby depriving the good guys of their main body of recruits and take possession of what looked to be their only defended facility? NO, let go down the the great hall, break some windows, laugh evilly and walk out. And yet everytime Dumbledore gets Harry to do his dirty work he goes to great lengths to emphasise their terrible situation and how everyones lives depend on it. Well unless everyone is really clumsy and fatally slip on broken glass there didn't seem to be a whole lot to worry about.

I could go on. Don't get me started. You were warned

Grand Admiral

Good review, much, much better than the Transformers one.

Also you are damn right there were not enough hot Goth chicks in the damn place.

Baby Tea:
You know, I tried reading the books. I liked book 1-4, and hated Harry's character in book 5.
Well, the first 100 or so pages of book 5.

As did I, it's the only series I like where I hate the main character.

The main reason to see the HP movies isn't for the main 3 characters, it's really for Snape and some other characters. As this movie review proved, the main 3 characters are too busy staring at each other to realize there's some guy who wants to kill everybody named Voldemort. Oh well.
On a side note, I'm a bit angry the seventh book is being done in two movies. It could have been done in one long movie, but it appears the makers would rather milk as much money out of us as they can.

Great review!

I definitely agree with your less "in the middle" romance and more "at the end" climax. It could have been better in my opinion. But it was still worth seeing.

Silva:

The_root_of_all_evil:
Jane Lane is so totally Goth, but then Daria is just a perky Goth anyway. Double for Aeon Flux.

What? Daria, perky? Did I step into an alternate universe?

She's on MTV. A non-perky Goth wouldn't be seen dead on that ...trend wagon...

I would watch When Dinosaurs Walked th Earth without a doubt if it wasn't for the fact that last time I watched a movie you said was awesome it sucked balls. Seriously, Equilibrium was horrible, not even the action was decent :(

Other than that I'm always looking forward to your stuff, be it games or movies, you're really good at what you do. Keep it up.

Maybe it's just me but the audio didn't sync up with the visuals. And a lot of it was fuzzy.

Hahaha I loved the "boss" reference in there.

I want to say that I watched all Overthinkers too and enjoy them too, as I enjoy the reviews.

I read all 7 books and I'm the kind of guy that had the problem with 1st or 2nd movie that wasn't exactly as the book - like in the LotR:RotK when the ghost army was used in diffrent battle, I was pissed as hell. Any filler material usually pisses me off, and I'm glad to know about it before seeing the movie.
I don't find "no spoiler" think bad, because people that want to care about this movie should already read all the books and otherwise they're stupid! (because they don't read books)

Emma Watson is 19 now, as fudgeable as she is, we've got so see her grow up and that's fudged up. It's not like Britney that jumped as hot jailbait and later we've got to see her childhood pictures (like most of young female stars), but threatment like that is like pedophile training...
I remember that while reading HP I was waiting till he gets some action from the asian chick, but after that Harry gets very annoying with the certain uncertanity of his character - his always off with his assumptions about anything, and while it makes up for a good plottwist at the end, but makes the main characters look stupid.

I liked the review with the extras from other movies, but those fast disapearing texts are a problem and I usually pause the clip the moment I see one and it normally doesn't break the flow for me.

Amusing review.

GrandAdmiral:

Attempting to avoid as many spoilers as I can, the bit towards the end. Four or five high-power evil wizard break into Hogwarts and kill (someone important). Hmmm... What should we do now. Should we, perhaps, slaughter the population of the school thereby depriving the good guys of their main body of recruits and take possession of what looked to be their only defended facility? NO, let go down the the great hall, break some windows, laugh evilly and walk out. And yet everytime Dumbledore gets Harry to do his dirty work he goes to great lengths to emphasise their terrible situation and how everyones lives depend on it. Well unless everyone is really clumsy and fatally slip on broken glass there didn't seem to be a whole lot to worry about.

I could go on. Don't get me started. You were warned

Grand Admiral

You have actually understood something crucial. =)

I really like the books, so of course I got a proper slap in the face again, every single adaption since the 2. is nothing less.

So, to sum this down:
*If you actually like the books and don't like that they change stuff, then you will be disappointed.
*If you like the movies, then go see it, you will probably think the 5. was better, but never the less.
*If you are a 14 year old girl then you will love it.

Xandus117:
When dinosaurs walked the Earth looks like an awesome movie.

Yay! I got first comment!

And i am suprised that you did, 11 mins afetr the video came out and no idiots jumped it and made something up about the video.

Honestly(Isn't that what we all want?) I dont care to see this movie, unless i am getting some chicks shirt off for this, i'm not seeing it, which is better than what she'd have to do to get me to see Twilight, and i dont think most girls are willing to do all of that in cheese, This might be different if All of the movies, except for the first one didnt share a camera filter with the 1/4 scene i saw from Twilight.

I feel sub-human to be talking about this movie it might be good, this review didnt help me decide on whether its worth a mention and, blah, blah blah i don't care anymore...

I read something in another post and it gave me just enough feeling to say that i did enjoy the books, but i haven't read the last one, because by the time it came out i had read actual books for actual people, instead of "young adults", like most of Stephen King's books, The Pillars of the Earth, and some other, blah, blah blah....

Silva:

Oldmanwillow:
What was with all the Ron Paul and Ayn Rand Bashing. I can understand if you dont like them but why bash them in a harry potter review?

Because any mildly related critical video without some criticism of Ayn Rand is wasted. At least, that appears to be MovieBob's view. And I am inclined to agree.

Anyway, this wasn't that pointed. It was just a comparison to Magneto, which, considering Rand's belief that selfishness is a virtue and the great should only act to their own benefit, is both justified and inoffensive.

Rand herself would probably find it fair, except she wouldn't think of Magneto as a villain, which speaks volumes about her.

You simply cannot compare Magneto and Rand. Magneto uses force to try to get his way with OTHER PEOPLE PROPERTY which is something you cannot do in objectiveism. Rands view of selfishness is you can only be selfish when dealing with YOUR OWN PROPERTY. and Rands view on violence is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4D3TFHL_JQ&feature=PlayList&p=D688153FDB922DE8&index=9.

What rands characters did in Atlas shrugged when they were being expolited by the rest of the world is simple stop working and leaving the world to its own ends. While Magneto uses violence to force is views on the world. They are very different types of people and to compare them out of your and moviebobs ignorance of objectiveism is pitiful. Do your homework next time so mabe you wont make an ass out of your self.

Oldmanwillow:
What was with all the Ron Paul and Ayn Rand Bashing. I can understand if you dont like them but why bash them in a harry potter review?

Can I take from this that you're okay with making fun of Robert Heinlein, though? ;)

In all seriousness, I'm a libertarian ("small-l,") I appreciate what Paul was trying to stand for and I'm quite fond of both Ayn Rand and Objectivism. There's a well-worn copy of Atlas Shrugged in my general eyesight right now, in fact. That doesn't mean I won't poke some fun at either of them from time to time, especially recognizing how left-field that particular block of references was.

As to substance... Look, like I said, I LIKE Paul but it must be said: He's a little on the "crazy old man" side. NOT because of what he believes, but the manner in which he approaches it. He's not doing a great job as a spokesperson for his own movement, and his lack of media saavy (not realizing that failing to dissasociate his campaign from various neo-fascist sects trying to jump on his wagon, not having a single person on staff who knew who Sacha Baron Cohen was, etc) is proof of that he's in the unfortunate position of being the elder-spokesman of a philosophy thats re-emerged with a young audience but hasn't yet generated a generationally-appropriate standard bearer.

As to Ayn Rand... I won't lie, I at least partially wanted to stir up some traffic and poking the Objectivist beehive is usually a good way to do that. So far, mission accomplished ;)

The_root_of_all_evil:

Silva:

The_root_of_all_evil:
Jane Lane is so totally Goth, but then Daria is just a perky Goth anyway. Double for Aeon Flux.

What? Daria, perky? Did I step into an alternate universe?

She's on MTV. A non-perky Goth wouldn't be seen dead on that ...trend wagon...

Hmm, so in other words, you mean that she was perky FOR a Goth. That changes things in my head a little. Thanks for the clarification.

Oldmanwillow:
You simply cannot compare Magneto and Rand. Magneto uses force to try to get his way with OTHER PEOPLE PROPERTY which is something you cannot do in objectiveism. Rands view of selfishness is you can only be selfish when dealing with YOUR OWN PROPERTY. and Rands view on violence is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4D3TFHL_JQ&feature=PlayList&p=D688153FDB922DE8&index=9.

Amusing, then, how contradictory her views truly were. To call selfishness a virtue then to wax lyrical about how wrong it is to be violent is an amusing 180 degree turn. That goes from selfishness to altruism. It is a hypocritical thing, but I would never argue with calling violence wrong. But I would point out that the selfish portion of violence is a large section of what makes it wrong - i.e. denying another's right to live, as Galt puts it, is a selfish act, and that particular kind of selfishness is that of one who wishes to take and take with no regard for their fellow humans.

What rands characters did in Atlas shrugged when they were being expolited by the rest of the world is simple stop working and leaving the world to its own ends. While Magneto uses violence to force is views on the world. They are very different types of people and to compare them out of your and moviebobs ignorance of objectiveism is pitiful. Do your homework next time so mabe you wont make an ass out of your self.

If you believe that being violent in a direct manner is the only way to kill people, then you are dead wrong. Stopping work would mean that those who followed such characters would be denying the economy a chance to operate correctly. This would create economic strife, which always hits the poor the hardest. The poor would then work their hardest but still die of starvation, not to mention a great many denials of opportunity, which Galt ironically calls the taking of life "in a more general sense". Ergo, such actions, outside the convenient premises of fiction, would lead to the destruction of men as surely as any gunshot.

Besides which, there are those who would use objectivism as a vehicle for fascism, and for violence. That they do not follow the entirety of Rand's creeds does not deny them the opportunity to tarnish the reputation of less violent objectivists, for they appear as no less than a sect of the same belief system to any outsider. If a philosophy can be so easily turned to negative action, be it economic or violent, then the result is the same. Loss of life. A situation I will refuse to occur.

Do not defend your philosophy with a lightweight argument that could only operate in the realms of fiction and not in the reality of the world economy, then call me idiot.

I should point out that I, like MovieBob, have reasons to poke and prod the objectivist "beehive", and will continue to do so to your irritation. I have deep distrust for any philosophy with contradictions that obvious, and with followers so keen to defend the dead Rand - altrustically, for a philosopher that preaches selfishness! At least realise the irony of what you are doing, if you wish to debate this.

Oldmanwillow:
You simply cannot compare Magneto and Rand. Magneto uses force to try to get his way with OTHER PEOPLE PROPERTY which is something you cannot do in objectiveism. Rands view of selfishness is you can only be selfish when dealing with YOUR OWN PROPERTY.

I'm not necessarily comparing the two philosophically, it's more the characters and the way they deal with their situation as a member of a paradoxically persecuted superior being. The fact is, "Atlas Shrugged" is not the first (or best) scifi/futurist "negative utopia" story to focus on an elite minority suffering under the jealous tyranny of an "average" majority. Heck, pre-spaceflight this was damn near the most prevalent subgenre of what was not yet called science-fiction (making, as it does, a perfect allegory for the situation of "the nerd" versus "the world.") It's just the most politically-charged and well known today.

The main thing is that these stories only go one of two ways: Either the "superhuman/superior minority" is a kind of benevolent protector (see: the military and/or militarized government in much of Heinlein's work) or there is a conflict between them and the "normal" world. "Atlas" belongs more or less to the second type, even if there's no declaration of war. And, frankly, even though John Galt is non-violent himself, his movement is quite action-oriented: Even setting aside that he essentially condones Ragnar Djanneskold's piracy campaign, he and the other "strikers" are quite aware that the end-result of their manuevers will be a far-reaching societal collapse. And regardless of what Rand the philosopher has to say about violence, Rand the AUTHOR has an obvious blast describing the chaotic ends that come to the "bad guys" of the story.

Silva:

The_root_of_all_evil:

Silva:

The_root_of_all_evil:
Jane Lane is so totally Goth, but then Daria is just a perky Goth anyway. Double for Aeon Flux.

What? Daria, perky? Did I step into an alternate universe?

She's on MTV. A non-perky Goth wouldn't be seen dead on that ...trend wagon...

Hmm, so in other words, you mean that she was perky FOR a Goth. That changes things in my head a little. Thanks for the clarification.

Oldmanwillow:
You simply cannot compare Magneto and Rand. Magneto uses force to try to get his way with OTHER PEOPLE PROPERTY which is something you cannot do in objectiveism. Rands view of selfishness is you can only be selfish when dealing with YOUR OWN PROPERTY. and Rands view on violence is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4D3TFHL_JQ&feature=PlayList&p=D688153FDB922DE8&index=9.

Amusing, then, how contradictory her views truly were. To call selfishness a virtue then to wax lyrical about how wrong it is to be violent is an amusing 180 degree turn. That goes from selfishness to altruism. It is a hypocritical thing, but I would never argue with calling violence wrong. But I would point out that the selfish portion of violence is a large section of what makes it wrong - i.e. denying another's right to live, as Galt puts it, is a selfish act, and that particular kind of selfishness is that of one who wishes to take and take with no regard for their fellow humans.

What rands characters did in Atlas shrugged when they were being expolited by the rest of the world is simple stop working and leaving the world to its own ends. While Magneto uses violence to force is views on the world. They are very different types of people and to compare them out of your and moviebobs ignorance of objectiveism is pitiful. Do your homework next time so mabe you wont make an ass out of your self.

If you believe that being violent in a direct manner is the only way to kill people, then you are dead wrong. Stopping work would mean that those who followed such characters would be denying the economy a chance to operate correctly. This would create economic strife, which always hits the poor the hardest. The poor would then work their hardest but still die of starvation, not to mention a great many denials of opportunity, which Galt ironically calls the taking of life "in a more general sense". Ergo, such actions, outside the convenient premises of fiction, would lead to the destruction of men as surely as any gunshot.

Besides which, there are those who would use objectivism as a vehicle for fascism, and for violence. That they do not follow the entirety of Rand's creeds does not deny them the opportunity to tarnish the reputation of less violent objectivists, for they appear as no less than a sect of the same belief system to any outsider. If a philosophy can be so easily turned to negative action, be it economic or violent, then the result is the same. Loss of life. A situation I will refuse to occur.

Do not defend your philosophy with a lightweight argument that could only operate in the realms of fiction and not in the reality of the world economy, then call me idiot.

I should point out that I, like MovieBob, have reasons to poke and prod the objectivist "beehive", and will continue to do so to your irritation. I have deep distrust for any philosophy with contradictions that obvious, and with followers so keen to defend the dead Rand - altrustically, for a philosopher that preaches selfishness! At least realise the irony of what you are doing, if you wish to debate this.

Your argument comes from not understanding objectiveism.

Question If you were selfish with your own Property and felt a desire for someone elese property would that lead to violence for an objectiveist.

Answer? No. If i had the right to be selfish with my own property the other person naturally was a right to be selfish with his property.

With YOUR own property you have the right to do with it what you want. Because your are not
entitled to others people property they are not entitled to yours. You only trade when its both parties let the transaction takes place not by ones physical force. Its simple logic you should try and use it sometime.

So Since other are not entitled to your property and you are not entitled to theses it perfectly logic to not cooperate when you do not agree with an others action but cant force them to change it physically change it what do you do? you dont go through the deal. You arent taking away free will they can still chooses both options. (like North korea with their nukes. They could of taken apart there nuclear program and goten all the money but they chooses not to). Sure they are indircetly forcing their view, but again they are only manipulating their end of the wager. Not the other parties.

The only true political direction that objectiveism could take is libertarianism. How you got facism out of it tell me more that you dont understand (or care to understand objectiveism)

How could you say that objectiveism could only work in fiction. IT HASNT BEEN TRIED YET. all other systems have been tested and all have failed from time to time. so you are saying because it hasnt been tried that it cannot work. They have said that about every major invention of mankind. hmmmm?

MovieBob:

Abedeus:
How very nice that you ruined the movie for anyone who has yet to watch it... I dunno, in a different country that has yet to premiere it

I go back and forth on spoilers, usually opting to skip them entirely. In the case of this one, I figured there's really only TWO things you can "give away," one of which I didn't bring up and the other of which is more-or-less already in the trailer. Unfortunately, some movies (like this one) kind of "are" their plot, so it's nearly impossible to discuss them without mentioning details.

And like he said, You have either read the books and are going to see the movie, or you don't care. Good review moviebob. I am going to see it cause I used to be obssessed with the books

Oldmanwillow:

Silva:

The_root_of_all_evil:

Silva:

The_root_of_all_evil:
Jane Lane is so totally Goth, but then Daria is just a perky Goth anyway. Double for Aeon Flux.

What? Daria, perky? Did I step into an alternate universe?

She's on MTV. A non-perky Goth wouldn't be seen dead on that ...trend wagon...

Hmm, so in other words, you mean that she was perky FOR a Goth. That changes things in my head a little. Thanks for the clarification.

Oldmanwillow:
You simply cannot compare Magneto and Rand. Magneto uses force to try to get his way with OTHER PEOPLE PROPERTY which is something you cannot do in objectiveism. Rands view of selfishness is you can only be selfish when dealing with YOUR OWN PROPERTY. and Rands view on violence is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4D3TFHL_JQ&feature=PlayList&p=D688153FDB922DE8&index=9.

Amusing, then, how contradictory her views truly were. To call selfishness a virtue then to wax lyrical about how wrong it is to be violent is an amusing 180 degree turn. That goes from selfishness to altruism. It is a hypocritical thing, but I would never argue with calling violence wrong. But I would point out that the selfish portion of violence is a large section of what makes it wrong - i.e. denying another's right to live, as Galt puts it, is a selfish act, and that particular kind of selfishness is that of one who wishes to take and take with no regard for their fellow humans.

What rands characters did in Atlas shrugged when they were being expolited by the rest of the world is simple stop working and leaving the world to its own ends. While Magneto uses violence to force is views on the world. They are very different types of people and to compare them out of your and moviebobs ignorance of objectiveism is pitiful. Do your homework next time so mabe you wont make an ass out of your self.

If you believe that being violent in a direct manner is the only way to kill people, then you are dead wrong. Stopping work would mean that those who followed such characters would be denying the economy a chance to operate correctly. This would create economic strife, which always hits the poor the hardest. The poor would then work their hardest but still die of starvation, not to mention a great many denials of opportunity, which Galt ironically calls the taking of life "in a more general sense". Ergo, such actions, outside the convenient premises of fiction, would lead to the destruction of men as surely as any gunshot.

Besides which, there are those who would use objectivism as a vehicle for fascism, and for violence. That they do not follow the entirety of Rand's creeds does not deny them the opportunity to tarnish the reputation of less violent objectivists, for they appear as no less than a sect of the same belief system to any outsider. If a philosophy can be so easily turned to negative action, be it economic or violent, then the result is the same. Loss of life. A situation I will refuse to occur.

Do not defend your philosophy with a lightweight argument that could only operate in the realms of fiction and not in the reality of the world economy, then call me idiot.

I should point out that I, like MovieBob, have reasons to poke and prod the objectivist "beehive", and will continue to do so to your irritation. I have deep distrust for any philosophy with contradictions that obvious, and with followers so keen to defend the dead Rand - altrustically, for a philosopher that preaches selfishness! At least realise the irony of what you are doing, if you wish to debate this.

Your argument comes from not understanding objectiveism.

Question If you were selfish with your own Property and felt a desire for someone elese property would that lead to violence for an objectiveist.

Answer? No. If i had the right to be selfish with my own property the other person naturally was a right to be selfish with his property.

With YOUR own property you have the right to do with it what you want. Because your are not
entitled to others people property they are not entitled to yours. You only trade when its both parties let the transaction takes place not by ones physical force. Its simple logic you should try and use it sometime.

So Since other are not entitled to your property and you are not entitled to theses it perfectly logic to not cooperate when you do not agree with an others action but cant force them to change it physically change it what do you do? you dont go through the deal. You arent taking away free will they can still chooses both options. (like North korea with their nukes. They could of taken apart there nuclear program and goten all the money but they chooses not to). Sure they are indircetly forcing their view, but again they are only manipulating their end of the wager. Not the other parties.

The only true political direction that objectiveism could take is libertarianism. How you got facism out of it tell me more that you dont understand (or care to understand objectiveism)

How could you say that objectiveism could only work in fiction. IT HASNT BEEN TRIED YET. all other systems have been tested and all have failed from time to time. so you are saying because it hasnt been tried that it cannot work. They have said that about every major invention of mankind. hmmmm?

So... um yah... good review about HARRY POTTER!

Oldmanwillow:
Your argument comes from not understanding objectiveism.

You misspell the name of your own philosophy, then presume to tell me that I do not understand it?

How ironic.

You do realise, of course, that after saying that I do not understand objectivism, you have failed to point out what exactly I have missed? Perhaps this is because I have missed nothing. At this point, you have only confirmed that there is very little I do not understand about this system.

My point, which you have so clearly ignored for lack of understanding, was to imply a question: what is a follower of a philosophy? Is it someone who agrees with the original philosopher or founder of that set of beliefs in all ways (if possible, which in some times, particularly where contradictions such as with Rand are concerned)? Or is it someone who identifies themselves as a member of that philosophy, even if there are disagreements?

The answer that I implied shortly after was that a follower must be whatever the majority of identifiable followers call themselves. This makes the language both efficient and manageable, and allows social movements to be spoken of as denoted by their result rather than by their genesis.

If that is so, then a follower of a philosophy who has some disagreements with the founding philosopher is still a follower overall.

That section of followers may end up being the true test of the philosophy itself, that is, whether or not it can become useful to humanity, and whether or not the original theory can be taken into practice. If there is too much difference between the original and the human result, then the philosophy is at its core unsuccessful. That situation is precisely what I believe is becoming obvious with objectivism, since even though Rand taught that violence was incurably wrong, the men who follow her support wars and often take a very extreme stance about non-American countries.

Question If you were selfish with your own Property and felt a desire for someone elese property would that lead to violence for an objectiveist.

Answer? No. If i had the right to be selfish with my own property the other person naturally was a right to be selfish with his property.

This is no direct refute for any belief that I have stood for. You are merely recalling your beliefs for my entertainment and disdain.

Just to make this a little more useful, I will ask: are you saying that objectivists do not support war? I'd love you to point out any statistics that suggest anything other than the majority of self-claimed objectivists are right-wing supporters of all recent American wars.

With YOUR own property you have the right to do with it what you want. Because your are not
entitled to others people property they are not entitled to yours. You only trade when its both parties let the transaction takes place not by ones physical force.

I understand the simple rule, and in and of itself I do not disagree with it. It is the larger system that I have refuted, and that you have yet to defend. You should get on with that if you want to seem like someone doing something other than mindlessly shoving views down the other's throat. An argument requires direct engagement with the opponent's points, not this avoidance of what I have said.

Its simple logic you should try and use it sometime.

If you are incapable of calm discussion, then there is no need to continue, for you have no hope to win with emotion against logic. Perhaps return to this discussion when you are capable of avoiding personal slurs.

So Since other are not entitled to your property and you are not entitled to theses it perfectly logic to not cooperate when you do not agree with an others action but cant force them to change it physically change it what do you do? you dont go through the deal. You arent taking away free will they can still chooses both options. (like North korea with their nukes. They could of taken apart there nuclear program and goten all the money but they chooses not to). Sure they are indircetly forcing their view, but again they are only manipulating their end of the wager. Not the other parties.

The only true political direction that objectiveism could take is libertarianism. How you got facism out of it tell me more that you dont understand (or care to understand objectiveism)

Fascism is merely an extreme of what objectivism leads towards. Fascism is the extreme right wing. In practice and majority of followers, objectivism in this modern world tends towards the right wing, and so has taken on other political ideals which run deeper and stronger, such as social conservatism and economic liberalism. A tendency taken to an extreme becomes the extreme itself, and that is what some objectivists, unfortunately, are all too capable of doing.

How could you say that objectiveism could only work in fiction. IT HASNT BEEN TRIED YET. all other systems have been tested and all have failed from time to time. so you are saying because it hasnt been tried that it cannot work. They have said that about every major invention of mankind. hmmmm?

I've addressed this in my larger argument at the top of this post. In summary for your reference, objectivism has already failed its first practical political test, that is in creating a mass following which actually distills in a pure form the beliefs of Rand. If it cannot even pass that first phase of belief, then as a philosophy it is utterly useless.

Theory is beautiful, fact is uglier, and a philosopher that denies this is living in a pipe dream. Going by my own thoughts, and indeed yours, Ayn Rand was exactly such a philosopher.

i hated the last book fuck all happened how are they going to make this a two partner i can sum it up in a few senices

every evry one you liked dies
the go camping look for meaningless crap that it useless in the and

voldamort is killed by his own wand
and the eploge is the wort slap in the face ever

Am I the only person in this world who thinks the harry potter movies are awful? Sure there are some intersting parts but its all the same. Daniel Radcliff has no personality in any of the films, even when he's drunken that luck potion in this movie, he still seems as bland as a piece of sand paper. Nothing happens in this movie, and when something does happen, its over before you can say "finally". The third was the worst but this isn't that far behind.

Izzil:

Abedeus:
How very nice that you ruined the movie for anyone who has yet to watch it... I dunno, in a different country that has yet to premiere it?

You.

Don't.

Put.

SPOILERS

In a review. Especially something from the last few minutes of the movie.

Except with this franchise anyone who cares already knows what happens, so it's not an especially big deal unless you've forgotten.

Those who don't know by now most likely won't care, as they've more than likely never bought into the Potter hype and don't feel as though their very soul was pissed on just because they learned something before reading/viewing the material.

I would go with this. If you care about having the film ruined, then youve either read the book or had someone else spoil it for you already. I havent read the last one as i just stopped caring and know pretty much all the importtant goings on.

I have two things to say.

1. On spoilers. I actually went to see this with 3 people who have only watched the movies and not read the books, some people don't read. So it was hard for me having read them to not say anything, but Harry Potter does have a fan base that has yet to read the books as well. So the spoiler this, it's fair.

2. Nextly, I almost liked this review, it could have been good but you left a sour taste in my mouth with the entire Goth reference and stereotyping. I don't personally believe in witchcraft or anything, but I have a roomate who practices Wicka (sp?) as a religion and literlly almost tore the house down and ripped stuff up when she heard that come off my computer. I think you'd be a little better off in your reviews to let's say, not sterotype or do something that could generally insult a population. Keep it clean, friendly, and fun ... it's when your reviews end up good ... que UP.

I thought most people already agreed that the 3rd movie is the best one. I saw 6 last night, and I have to say that's it's right up there with 3 for me.

The magician elite deciding the fate of the poor muggles is what I hate most about the franchise.

Even the "good" wizards call non magician people by pejorative names, while they scream and run around in confusion with the magic thing

i just got back from seeing this and it was bloody awful... they took out the good battles and replaced it with awkward teenage angst and bad acting...

Silva:

Oldmanwillow:
Your argument comes from not understanding objectiveism.

You misspell the name of your own philosophy, then presume to tell me that I do not understand it?

How ironic.

You do realise, of course, that after saying that I do not understand objectivism, you have failed to point out what exactly I have missed? Perhaps this is because I have missed nothing. At this point, you have only confirmed that there is very little I do not understand about this system.

My point, which you have so clearly ignored for lack of understanding, was to imply a question: what is a follower of a philosophy? Is it someone who agrees with the original philosopher or founder of that set of beliefs in all ways (if possible, which in some times, particularly where contradictions such as with Rand are concerned)? Or is it someone who identifies themselves as a member of that philosophy, even if there are disagreements?

The answer that I implied shortly after was that a follower must be whatever the majority of identifiable followers call themselves. This makes the language both efficient and manageable, and allows social movements to be spoken of as denoted by their result rather than by their genesis.

If that is so, then a follower of a philosophy who has some disagreements with the founding philosopher is still a follower overall.

That section of followers may end up being the true test of the philosophy itself, that is, whether or not it can become useful to humanity, and whether or not the original theory can be taken into practice. If there is too much difference between the original and the human result, then the philosophy is at its core unsuccessful. That situation is precisely what I believe is becoming obvious with objectivism, since even though Rand taught that violence was incurably wrong, the men who follow her support wars and often take a very extreme stance about non-American countries.

Question If you were selfish with your own Property and felt a desire for someone elese property would that lead to violence for an objectiveist.

Answer? No. If i had the right to be selfish with my own property the other person naturally was a right to be selfish with his property.

This is no direct refute for any belief that I have stood for. You are merely recalling your beliefs for my entertainment and disdain.

Just to make this a little more useful, I will ask: are you saying that objectivists do not support war? I'd love you to point out any statistics that suggest anything other than the majority of self-claimed objectivists are right-wing supporters of all recent American wars.

With YOUR own property you have the right to do with it what you want. Because your are not
entitled to others people property they are not entitled to yours. You only trade when its both parties let the transaction takes place not by ones physical force.

I understand the simple rule, and in and of itself I do not disagree with it. It is the larger system that I have refuted, and that you have yet to defend. You should get on with that if you want to seem like someone doing something other than mindlessly shoving views down the other's throat. An argument requires direct engagement with the opponent's points, not this avoidance of what I have said.

Its simple logic you should try and use it sometime.

If you are incapable of calm discussion, then there is no need to continue, for you have no hope to win with emotion against logic. Perhaps return to this discussion when you are capable of avoiding personal slurs.

So Since other are not entitled to your property and you are not entitled to theses it perfectly logic to not cooperate when you do not agree with an others action but cant force them to change it physically change it what do you do? you dont go through the deal. You arent taking away free will they can still chooses both options. (like North korea with their nukes. They could of taken apart there nuclear program and goten all the money but they chooses not to). Sure they are indircetly forcing their view, but again they are only manipulating their end of the wager. Not the other parties.

The only true political direction that objectiveism could take is libertarianism. How you got facism out of it tell me more that you dont understand (or care to understand objectiveism)

Fascism is merely an extreme of what objectivism leads towards. Fascism is the extreme right wing. In practice and majority of followers, objectivism in this modern world tends towards the right wing, and so has taken on other political ideals which run deeper and stronger, such as social conservatism and economic liberalism. A tendency taken to an extreme becomes the extreme itself, and that is what some objectivists, unfortunately, are all too capable of doing.

How could you say that objectiveism could only work in fiction. IT HASNT BEEN TRIED YET. all other systems have been tested and all have failed from time to time. so you are saying because it hasnt been tried that it cannot work. They have said that about every major invention of mankind. hmmmm?

I've addressed this in my larger argument at the top of this post. In summary for your reference, objectivism has already failed its first practical political test, that is in creating a mass following which actually distills in a pure form the beliefs of Rand. If it cannot even pass that first phase of belief, then as a philosophy it is utterly useless.

Theory is beautiful, fact is uglier, and a philosopher that denies this is living in a pipe dream. Going by my own thoughts, and indeed yours, Ayn Rand was exactly such a philosopher.

So how is being selfish with your own property leading to violence with someone else? true selfishness can only take place with your own property if it with someone else property its called coveting. There is a difference. So i have to ask how is being selfish violent.

Yet again calling us Fascist is untrue. Fascism is still a form of government where the STATE runs everything, and everything works for the benefit of the state. While Objectivism believes that the role of government should be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkSXqFUtKD4&feature=PlayList&p=D688153FDB922DE8&index=11 (watch from 6:50 till the end).

So how are we Fascist?

While Objectivism is the philosophy for libertarianism. since we are libertarians not neo-cons we actually voted against all recent American wars. (you know like Ron Paul)

So again how are we fascist and when we are libertarian?

And i love when people try to say and argument is invalid because of spelling. All they are trying to do is avoid the last point made.

Bob's right, their should have been more sexy goth girls.

MovieBob:

Oldmanwillow:
What was with all the Ron Paul and Ayn Rand Bashing. I can understand if you dont like them but why bash them in a harry potter review?

Can I take from this that you're okay with making fun of Robert Heinlein, though? ;)

In all seriousness, I'm a libertarian ("small-l,") I appreciate what Paul was trying to stand for and I'm quite fond of both Ayn Rand and Objectivism. There's a well-worn copy of Atlas Shrugged in my general eyesight right now, in fact. That doesn't mean I won't poke some fun at either of them from time to time, especially recognizing how left-field that particular block of references was.

As to substance... Look, like I said, I LIKE Paul but it must be said: He's a little on the "crazy old man" side. NOT because of what he believes, but the manner in which he approaches it. He's not doing a great job as a spokesperson for his own movement, and his lack of media saavy (not realizing that failing to dissasociate his campaign from various neo-fascist sects trying to jump on his wagon, not having a single person on staff who knew who Sacha Baron Cohen was, etc) is proof of that he's in the unfortunate position of being the elder-spokesman of a philosophy thats re-emerged with a young audience but hasn't yet generated a generationally-appropriate standard bearer.

As to Ayn Rand... I won't lie, I at least partially wanted to stir up some traffic and poking the Objectivist beehive is usually a good way to do that. So far, mission accomplished ;)

Thank you for replying. The only reason why i said something at all is because so many people base do not understand objectivism and base their accusations off of their ignorance of it. Its very clear to me that you have a perfect understand of objectivism, so thank you.

MovieBob:

Oldmanwillow:
You simply cannot compare Magneto and Rand. Magneto uses force to try to get his way with OTHER PEOPLE PROPERTY which is something you cannot do in objectiveism. Rands view of selfishness is you can only be selfish when dealing with YOUR OWN PROPERTY.

I'm not necessarily comparing the two philosophically, it's more the characters and the way they deal with their situation as a member of a paradoxically persecuted superior being. The fact is, "Atlas Shrugged" is not the first (or best) scifi/futurist "negative utopia" story to focus on an elite minority suffering under the jealous tyranny of an "average" majority. Heck, pre-spaceflight this was damn near the most prevalent subgenre of what was not yet called science-fiction (making, as it does, a perfect allegory for the situation of "the nerd" versus "the world.") It's just the most politically-charged and well known today.

The main thing is that these stories only go one of two ways: Either the "superhuman/superior minority" is a kind of benevolent protector (see: the military and/or militarized government in much of Heinlein's work) or there is a conflict between them and the "normal" world. "Atlas" belongs more or less to the second type, even if there's no declaration of war. And, frankly, even though John Galt is non-violent himself, his movement is quite action-oriented: Even setting aside that he essentially condones Ragnar Djanneskold's piracy campaign, he and the other "strikers" are quite aware that the end-result of their manuevers will be a far-reaching societal collapse. And regardless of what Rand the philosopher has to say about violence, Rand the AUTHOR has an obvious blast describing the chaotic ends that come to the "bad guys" of the story.

True and i concede to this argument Rand the author loved violence. (Yet again thats why i like her non fiction so much more than her fiction)

vivaldiscool:
Hrm, most people I know hated it.

The main problem I've heard, is that the death eaters have been turned from a menacing and deadly force to what are essentially vandals. Attack hogwarts en-masse? To do what? break glass and start fires. Attack the human world to do what? Break glass and start fires. whuppity flipping doo. I especially like how the huge bridge jam packed with people was somehow cleared in 5 seconds flat before it fall.

I've also heard that the pacing's very fucked up. And they used absolutely ludacris logic to explain plot holes in the places where they differed from the books.

it got toned down to a PG rating is the reason why they're not a real threat in that movie. That bothered me about that movie.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here