InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Tinker, Tailor, Soldier and Spy. And no, as far as I am concerned, it does nothing to change the plotSarmz wrote:
What? He's gay in what?
Have you just ruined a plotline for me?
Not sure. I have read Clive Cussler's Isaac Bell series and really enjoyed those. Unfortunately, he releases more in Dirk Pitt series, which are good, but not as good as the Isaac Bell novels, there is probably one coming out soon. I also liked Joseph Delaney's Spook books, but I have kind of outgrown that series.Sarmz wrote:Are there any books or movies coming out that you're really looking forward to?
I think there is a new Stephen Lawhead book coming out soon, though 
Same with Harry Potter. Even Fantastic Mr. Bloody Fox. Roald Dahl would never have stood for that. His books were supposed to be fun, not some acceptance propaganda.BladeGunner wrote:InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Tinker, Tailor, Soldier and Spy. And no, as far as I am concerned, it does nothing to change the plot
I know, it was completely and utterly pointless. Just have to include a gay person in every film nowadays apparently, so people remember that it's normal.
InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Same with Harry Potter. Even Fantastic Mr. Bloody Fox. Roald Dahl would never have stood for that. His books were supposed to be fun, not some acceptance propaganda.BladeGunner wrote:
I know, it was completely and utterly pointless. Just have to include a gay person in every film nowadays apparently, so people remember that it's normal.
InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Same with Harry Potter. Even Fantastic Mr. Bloody Fox. Roald Dahl would never have stood for that. His books were supposed to be fun, not some acceptance propaganda.BladeGunner wrote:
I know, it was completely and utterly pointless. Just have to include a gay person in every film nowadays apparently, so people remember that it's normal.
InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Same with Harry Potter. Even Fantastic Mr. Bloody Fox. Roald Dahl would never have stood for that. His books were supposed to be fun, not some acceptance propaganda.BladeGunner wrote:
I know, it was completely and utterly pointless. Just have to include a gay person in every film nowadays apparently, so people remember that it's normal.
True. Who was gay in Fantastic Mr. Fox, though?Eternal Witcher wrote:InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Same with Harry Potter. Even Fantastic Mr. Bloody Fox. Roald Dahl would never have stood for that. His books were supposed to be fun, not some acceptance propaganda.
Who was gay?
The son, who wasn't good at anything. Unlike KristoffersonBladeGunner wrote:InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Same with Harry Potter. Even Fantastic Mr. Bloody Fox. Roald Dahl would never have stood for that. His books were supposed to be fun, not some acceptance propaganda.
J.K. did that to appeal to a wider audience. She sold out.Sean wrote:InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Same with Harry Potter. Even Fantastic Mr. Bloody Fox. Roald Dahl would never have stood for that. His books were supposed to be fun, not some acceptance propaganda.
Tbf, there's no mention of anyone being gay in Harry Potter, JK just said in an interview Dumbledore was probably gay.
InGlennyWeTrust wrote:The son, who wasn't good at anything. Unlike KristoffersonBladeGunner wrote:
InGlennyWeTrust wrote:J.K. did that to appeal to a wider audience. She sold out.Sean wrote:
Tbf, there's no mention of anyone being gay in Harry Potter, JK just said in an interview Dumbledore was probably gay.
It's not as if her entire series was a sell out, though
He was bisexual then.BladeGunner wrote:InGlennyWeTrust wrote:The son, who wasn't good at anything. Unlike Kristofferson
No concrete mention of that though, to be fair. And he was trying to attract the attention of one of the girls earlier on in the film, wasn't he?
I think so mainly because I read an article in the spectator about how the son was allegedly gay, and when I watched the film, I picked up on many of the hints.Agreed, her entire series was a sell out.Dan wrote:InGlennyWeTrust wrote:J.K. did that to appeal to a wider audience. She sold out.
It's not as if her entire series was a sell out, though
InGlennyWeTrust wrote:J.K. did that to appeal to a wider audience. She sold out.Sean wrote:
Tbf, there's no mention of anyone being gay in Harry Potter, JK just said in an interview Dumbledore was probably gay.
It's not as if her entire series was a sell out, though
InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Agreed, her entire series was a sell out.Dan wrote:
InGlennyWeTrust wrote:He was bisexual then.BladeGunner wrote:
No concrete mention of that though, to be fair. And he was trying to attract the attention of one of the girls earlier on in the film, wasn't he?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/all/5458253/status-anxiety.thtml
Eternal Witcher wrote:Cumberbatch is gay then. Shame.
InGlennyWeTrust wrote:I was joking.
However, I am serious when I state that the Harry Potter series was essentially the genre of fantasy selling out.
Sarmz wrote:Eternal Witcher wrote:Cumberbatch is gay then. Shame.
Only in a film you homophobe
Maybe selling out isn't the correct word-perhaps half modernized/half sell out is more appropriate. These kids go to school, have relationship problems, but it just so happens that the school they go to is for wizards. Oh yeah, and they fight some evil wizard geezer. So it's basically a teen romance with some extra bits added. She relied more on the school & friendship part than the actual issue, ie fighting Voldemort, to gain popularity.Sean wrote:InGlennyWeTrust wrote:I was joking.
However, I am serious when I state that the Harry Potter series was essentially the genre of fantasy selling out.
What do you mean?
Eternal Witcher wrote:The world needs another Tolkien.
Markus Heitz & Peter Thomas Crowell are two obscure names that are pretty similar in style. Nowhere near the majesty of Tolkien, of course.Eternal Witcher wrote:The world needs another Tolkien.
But still excellent.Sarmz wrote:Eternal Witcher wrote:The world needs another Tolkien.
Lord of the Rings was a boring trilogy. No idea how I got through it. I'd say the films were a lot better than the books which doesn't happen often.
The Hobbit was a good book though.
InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Maybe selling out isn't the correct word-perhaps half modernized/half sell out is more appropriate. These kids go to school, have relationship problems, but it just so happens that the school they go to is for wizards. Oh yeah, and they fight some evil wizard geezer. So it's basically a teen romance with some extra bits added. She relied more on the school & friendship part than the actual issue, ie fighting Voldemort, to gain popularity.Sean wrote:
What do you mean?
Am I making any sense?
InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Maybe selling out isn't the correct word-perhaps half modernized/half sell out is more appropriate. These kids go to school, have relationship problems, but it just so happens that the school they go to is for wizards. Oh yeah, and they fight some evil wizard geezer. So it's basically a teen romance with some extra bits added. She relied more on the school & friendship part than the actual issue, ie fighting Voldemort, to gain popularity.Sean wrote:
What do you mean?
Am I making any sense?
I know. I just think it's frustrating that such a cheesy series can become the best selling series of all time, when better authors with original ideas get only a fraction of the recognition.Dan wrote:InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Maybe selling out isn't the correct word-perhaps half modernized/half sell out is more appropriate. These kids go to school, have relationship problems, but it just so happens that the school they go to is for wizards. Oh yeah, and they fight some evil wizard geezer. So it's basically a teen romance with some extra bits added. She relied more on the school & friendship part than the actual issue, ie fighting Voldemort, to gain popularity.
Am I making any sense?
Tbh, I'd hardly say that is selling-out. The main part of the story is him growing up, developing relationships and understanding the importance of life. Voldemort, despite seeming to be an important role, was just a minor part of the story as a whole.
