Yet more proof that I am getting old.
Also, a reminder for me to be pedantic and insist on using the English title (… and the Philosopher’s Stone) for the title of the first book.
J.K. Rowling Celebrates 20th Anniversary of Harry Potter’s US Launch
Twenty years ago, today, American readers were introduced to Harry Potter with the first American […]
As the last day of the big high school band/orchestra trip, and after two days at Walt Disney World (at one of which the kids actually did a very interesting clinic involving sound tracks ), our partial last day before heading to the airport was spent at Universal Studios in Orlando.
For all our many trips to WDW, we’ve never done Universal, so I was looking forward to it based on all ads and people going and ooohing and aaahing over the new Harry Potter stuff and so forth.
Short summary: a mixed bag of interesting ride technology, area and ride theming that was very good to “bad show,” and a real dislike of “if someone wants to throw money at it, they can go to the front of the line on any ride they want.”
For the record, we did stuff at both Islands of Adventure and the Universal Studios park. Rides we managed to go on in our 5-odd hours there:
Lines ranged up to a bit over an hour and a half.
A few thoughts:
— Harry Potter academic / wizardly robes are not suited to the Florida climate, either for park workers or for the kids we saw running around in them.
— A plethora of Harry Potter wands being waved about by little kids almost certainly has to result in a lot of eye injuries on any given day, given the crowds.
— The rides were all generally pretty good; the two HP showcase rides were multi-media of practical effects, physical movement, and video projections, all blended satisfactorily. For the record, we enjoyed Forbidden Journey over Gringotts, though the latter is usually more highly rated.
— Lots of effective use of video displays and so forth in the various HP zones (for moving portraits, for animated newspapers and wanted posters, etc.)
— Universal does a lot with in-ride or ride-adjacent lockers for loose items. Somehow, that was never a problem at WDW, but at Universal it was always a madhouse (esp. with the in-ride ones) to get a locker (or two) and then to recover the items after (when the finger-print readers worked).
— Lots of stairs at Universal inside the rides.
— Some of the theming was excellent. Hogsmeade was a gorgeous winter-bound town, and Diagon Alley was a lovely zone as well. One could easily spend much more time them, just pushing your way through the over-filled and over-crowded shops and peering through the windows.
The same was true in the areas we went to elsewhere. Walking through the Dr. Seuss zone was surreal, and felt just like what it should.
That said, there were plenty of cases of “bad show” — unthemed elements visible where they should not be, chinks in the illusion. My sense is that Universal hasn’t caught up to Disney there.
— All the things we went on were fun, and I don’t regret the time spent there.
— To generalize, though, Disney create a broad environment that tries to grab you before you enter and goes with you through the whole day. There is a sense there of commitment to you as the guest, and an eye to detail that remains exquisite.
Universal is out for the wham-bam experience. The zones and rides and so forth are chock-a-block, with little rhyme or reason. Why is there a San Francisco area, and why is it across the lake from Springfield? Where would one expect to find Dr. Seuss? There are zones, but no theme.
This ties into Universal’s broader use of big movement, fast movement, thrill rides. Disney tries to provide thrills mostly through engagement in the overall park experience and immersion in the story. Universal focuses more on fastest, biggest, wildest. Both are valid approaches, both have their audiences, but in the end it makes (for me) the Universal experience feel a bit more frenetic, more forgettable.
Moreover, though Disney is certainly not at all cheap, Universal seems to really emphasize the the commercial nature of the the park experience, complete with two tiers of “I get to cut to the front of the line” tickets that are available for gobs of cash; while Disney does this to some degree with FastPass, that’s for free and is clearly an effort to manage crowds; Universal’s is clearly an effort to build an additional revenue stream. Both offend social conventions against queue jumping, but Universal’s felt more egregious.
Or, put another way (this via the young’un): going to Disney World is like going to the grandparents house for the holidays — they’re going to care for you, take care of you, and if it’s not going to be thrilling, it’s going to be fun. Universal is more like the aunt you visit sometimes who always has cupcakes and who has really weird furniture that doesn’t quite smell right — it’s also enjoyable, even exciting, but also not where you want to spend all your vacation.
After this trip, I’d love to go spend more time at Universal, at a more sedate pace, and explore some of the other things they have there. But I’d rather go back to WDW again and be able to do the same.
The caption reads, “Here’s to the best damned antagonist a guy could ask for.”
(Original: http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon/bonus-daily-cartoon-remembering-alan-rickman)
Now that's a sad piece of news to start the day.
I loved this man's movie work. From Hans Gruber in Die Hard, to the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves, to Metatron in _Dogma, to Severus Snape in the Harry Potter movies, he brought a touch of class and richness to everything he touched. And that voice …
Thank you, sir, for many enjoyable hours.
Alan Rickman, giant of British film and theatre, dies at 69 | Film | The Guardian
A hat tip to +Kay Hill for this one.
And here's something to throw into the next nerdly conversation you're having to create a bit of geek-raging controversy: J. K. Rowling confirms that the name of her main baddy in the Harry Potter books — Voldemort — is pronounced with the "t" silent, as the French might (and, in fact, apparently do).
For whatever reason, the movies pronounced it with an audible "t" at the end, which established that version as what most folk use, changing even how the audiobooks were being recorded.
Meanwhile, http://goo.gl/XAdGg .
J.K. Rowling says we’ve been pronouncing Voldemort’s name wrong
J.K. Rowling has revealed on Twitter that she pronounces “Voldemort” differently to most of us.
The "Hall of Heroes" by Scott Park Illustration. Unsorted, but grouped by the movie/show they appeared in. The key is at the bottom.
Actually, I call Poe http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law) on this, if only because it's gobsmackingly poorly written and clumsy in its desire to rewrite the Harry Potter books as evangelical screeds that eliminate the magic witchcraft devil worship and replace it with ideological wars between True Christians and Catholics, other Fake Christians, and, of course, Atheists.
On the other hand, I've read worse fan fiction, so I could well be wrong.
Mom’s Evangelical Christian Rewrite of Harry Potter CANNOT Be Real
Exciting news from the fan fiction world! A writer who claims to be an Evangelical stay-at-home mom named Grace Ann has taken it upon herself to remove all the witchcraft devil-worship from Harry Potter and replace it with a more Christian-friendly message. Looks like someone has finally thought of the children — by stripping a children’s book of the very thing that makes it fun to read.
Read J.K. Rowling’s new post for the latest Harry Potter ‘gossip’
Can’t get enough of Harry Potter? Then this is for you. Since March, best-selling author J. K. Rowling has been writing original stories…
I laughed. I cried. I rolled my eyes.
(h/t +Curt Thompson)
Reshared post from +A Perez
Much laughter
Ayn Rand’s Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
Ayn Rand presents Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.
The Greatest Harry Potter Sequel We’ll Never Get to See
Which is unfortunate because this is easily better than ‘Prisoner of Azkaban.’
On the other hand, romance is strange, and people end up together that you never quite expected.
I think it's more interesting the "meta" around this question — that Rowling had a vision for how things ended, and, even with misgivings as they progressed, stuck to it. I see that sometimes in my own writing (and GMing, for that matter) — the tension between sticking with the plan even if tempted to leave it, and being able to adapt and change even if it means tearing a bunch of stuff up, is, I suspect, a constant in most creative minds.
Reshared post from +Terrence Lui
Sticking to Previous Choices
J.K. Rowling has said in an interview that she made a mistake in pairing Ron and Hermione. This of course has a lot of fans up in arms. Frankly, I agree with her. Always seemed strange and a little bit forced that Hermione ended up with Ron And quite frankly, I never understood why Harry ended up with Ginny.
She admits that she wrote it that way because that's how she first imagined it. I think we have all been in situations where we have made one decision an stuck with it even if it later proves not to be the best one. In this particular case, I'm sure that as the story evolved, and the series became a bigger success than she could have ever hoped for, she clung to the idea as she first imagined it perhaps in a hope to stay true to the story. However, storytelling is fluid and she just failed to recognize that she had taken these characters in directions she hadn't first imagined.
What do you think? Was it better the way it was written or do you think Rowling is right now and that she made a mistake?
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/rowling-hermione-married-harry-potter-article-1.1599445
J.K. Rowling says Hermione should have married Harry Potter, not Ron Weasley
The British best-selling author, 48, admitted in an interview with “Harry Potter” actress Emma Watson that she should have paired Hermione Granger with the titular character, instead of his red-headed sidekick Ron Weasley.
Always hate seeing the boss run the business into the ground.
Reshared post from +Les Jenkins
It's like upper management isn't even listening…
Voldemort’s Assistant, Kevin
See more art by
Saruman — While Sauron remains this powerful demonic force (giant eye or not), Saruman displays the corruptibility of power and knowledge (also played on by Tolkien in Gollum and Denethor). Saruman's pride simply gets the better of him, and for a time it works, before he gets his come-uppance. He's the force of modernity (destroying landscape in both Isengard and the Shire), trying to "improve" what doesn't improving (the Uruk-hai), and he even thinks he can play Sauron and get the Ring for himself. The irony is that, in his role as the head of the Istari, he was more powerful and influential than than anything he had the prospect of becoming, and his entire arc is a downward one.
Thanos — While usually dismissed as a Darkseid rip-off, Thanos brings his own value to the table. A nihilist who worships Death and seeks her love, Thanos can play the long game, and even act as an ally of "good" (as against the Magus) when it serves his purpose. There was a great meta-arc crafted for him some years back about his how his own mortal foibles and fundamental sense of unworthiness always sabotaged his plans, at which point of epiphany, he settled down and became a farmer. Alas, like Magneto and Galactus, he's been battered and revised and replayed with so often than it's difficult to see anything coherent about him any more.
Loki — In the myths he was Coyote, the mischief-bringer who could be a great ally or a bitter foe. In the comics, he started off as the standard Lee/Kirby arch-fiend, but in the last decade or so has become much more of a — well, occasionally sympathetic character, whether in the glorious Rob Rodi / Esad Ribic Loki miniseries, or in Tom Hiddleston's splendid portrayal on the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Khan Noonian Singh — And here I'm talking Montalban, not Cumberbatch (though the latter's pretty keen). An amazing case where a movie potrayal actually matches or surpasses the TV original a decade and a half later, Montalban's Khan starts as a smug, smooth, highly charismatic leader of men, ruthless in the desire for power but almost sympathetic as a giant among mortals (and, as Kirk notes, just as prone to fatal human flaws as lesser beings). In the movie, bitter madness has taken him over, corrupting even his desire for power into a desire for revenge. Montalban succeeds in doing something no other Kirk villain has done — out-chew Shatner viz the scenery, and he does it with Melvillean perfection.
"Q" — A brilliant character created with the return of Star Trek in "Next Generation," Q epitomizes and satirizes the nigh-omniscient asshats that Kirk kept running into in TOS. He's the opposite of deus ex machina, a way for the writers to get the crew into trouble with the snap of a finger. More importantly, he's the perfect foil for politically correct, stick-up-his-ass, genteel Jean-Luc Picard, challenging his (and the Federation's) assumptions, challenging his successes, and clarifying his character. Triffic stuff, only abetted by the novels Peter David wrote later using the character.
Severus Snape — It's difficult to disengage the character in the book from the character in the movies, so I won't even try. Snape starts off the Harry Potter series as the sneering professorial bully, but ultimately turns out to be a hero (and, well, yeah, still a bully), a tragic one at that. His hatred of Harry and his fierce (if sometimes twisted) protection of him stem from childhood pain, redeemed (and trusted) by Dumbledore in a terrible long game against Voldemort. He remains a villain, but one with a weeping heart of gold.
Reshared post from +Isaac Sher
Threat Or Menace returns from its thanksgiving break with a new installment of "Fav Five Fridays" — this time, we each give a list of our favorite villains from genre media! Is your favorite on any of our lists? Which five would YOU have picked? Come take a look, and tell us about your own list!
And on a side note, Happy Birthday to +Topher Gerkey!
Fav Five Fridays: Our Favorite Villains
We’re back from Thanksgiving break, and what better way to commemorate the new winter holiday season than with a celebration of deliciously evil badguys, the ones who are so wonderfully wicked that…
And, as an added note, David Bradley (as William Hartnell) effectively joins the ranks of Harry Potter / Doctor Who cross-over actors, which include most prominently David Tennant, Roger Lloyd Pack, John Hurt, Michael Gambon, Zoë Wanamaker, and Shirley Henderson. (And, before you object that Bradley wasn't in the actual series … he was: more at http://goo.gl/0Q2UtG .)
A ★★★★ review of An Adventure in Space and Time (2013)
Just finished watching (courtesy of the DVR) this BBC TV movie about the creation and early years of “Doctor Who”. I’m pleased and impressed. David Bradley’s rendition of William Hartnell, reborn and slowly declining, is beautifully, tragically done. The other key actors do a splendid job as well, capturing the time and place and spirit of the early 60s and what that “kiddie show” did to a nation. Half drama, half documentary, it’s a lot of fun a…
'JK Rowling is to make her screenwriting debut in a new Harry Potter-themed film series, Warner Bros has announced. The first film of the series will be titled Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.
[…] The new film will feature Newt Scamander, the fictional author of the textbook Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, owned by Harry Potter at Hogwarts school. […] "Although it will be set in the worldwide community of witches and wizards where I was so happy for 17 years, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is neither a prequel nor a sequel to the Harry Potter series, but an extension of the wizarding world. The laws and customs of the hidden magical society will be familiar to anyone who has read the Harry Potter books or seen the films, but Newt's story will start in New York, 70 years before Harry's gets underway."'
It may be that it's being poorly described or summarized, but I'm not seeing anything here that makes me excited about this.
Actually, the scariest thing here isn't Green Lantern 2, but Sandman being discussed in terms of an Harry Potter franchise replacement. I mean, Sandman is brilliant, and I would personally chop off one of my own fingers to see a well-done series of movies faithful to Gaiman's creation — but casting my mind back on the various story arcs, that's pretty weird shit there, and I'm unsure the American movie-going public is going to be interested in it (let alone taking their kidlings a la Harry Potter) without some major, awful soul-draining rewrites.
Reshared post from +Mark Means
Movies
Wow, the grass isn't looking a whole lot greener on the D.C. side of the silver screen.
A few of these, I'll believe only after I see them cough Wonder Woman cough
Also…
Green Lantern II ?
Seriously?
