The Critical Drinker thoughts on Harry Potter 

interesting take. i agree with you

It does get a bit deeper in later books. Basically about a child being raised basically to be a human sacrifice to defeat a wizard version of Hitler.

Reading The Hobbit is a better introduction to fantasy than HP. It goes from a band of dwarves carrying nothing but musical instruments and having wacky colored beards to The Battle of the Five Armies and main characters dying in a pretty smooth progression. Perfect for kids on the verge of puberty.

@@LordBaktor Dwarves aren't as relatable to Kids as Kids in Hogwarts. I think that's an item with LoTR intro for kids.

@@pOOL_pANTS Whadd're you talking about? Dwarves are way cooler than kids!

i dont know-- Harry Potter isn't that great when compared to LoTR. but i cant think of anything else off the top of my head where it felt controversial. he's pretty level imo. however, i recall one of the streams someone was supporting Alex Jones, but i forget who and which video.

@@pOOL_pANTS it’s a pretty solid heroes journey story about death, sacrifice, friendship, prejudice without being too overtly “woke”, a gradual shift from a fun kid’s story about magic and wizards to one about loss, grief , having to make ultimate sacrifices .

I mean he straight up said "fuck Harry Potter." He could have said it's not his thing or he doesn't really like it but he seems to have an actual hatred for the series. I look forward to watching a video where he discusses the franchise. And of course Lord of the Rings is better.

Harry potter is shit

@@demgreens You don’t have to hate something to say “fuck it”, jeeeeeeezuz.. Example “Wanna watch Harry Potter or Batman Begins?” “Fuck Harry Potter” Example 2 “Wanna fool around, or shall we watch Harry Potter” “Fuck Harry Potter”

well said.

LOL great comment. But, to be fair, all works will be better than MCU phase 4.

​@@pOOL_pANTSEven the Twighlight saga 💀

@@ElTw haha how much farther down can we go?

@@ElTw 🤣

@@pOOL_pANTS I can't think of anything worse

Oh there's still plenty of people who never did either for Harry Potter. It was kind of a generation thing.

You weren't allowed to read Harry Potter as a kid LOL LOL LOL!

@@millennialwatchman6703 Why laugh? I didn't miss anything, apparently.

@@roninelenion4805 I'm curious did your parents think it was too violent or something? Or did they think you were sinning because it's a book with wizards and magic in it? That would be very funny because LOTR also has a wizard hero (gandalf) and the other heroes use magical objects (like Aragorn summons an army of the dead with his sword)

@@millennialwatchman6703 It was originally because my parents thought it was too scary for me, and then, because my older sister read most of the books, it was because of "the occult". I had to fight my mom to read and watch LotR when I was thirteen, saying that the author was a devout Catholic, that the wizards were like archangels instead of human sorcerers, and that there were these amazing themes of fellowship and resisting temptations. My dad was a fan of the movies, which I didn't know, so he backed me up. Without him, I probably wouldn't have been allowed. Mom gave in, and was mostly okay with it when I started singing songs and quoting speeches about courage instead of reciting spells. She wasn't fully onboard until I think two or three years ago, when her favorite Catholic radio station started singing the books' praises. Go figure.

me too.

It's definitely a generation thing, for most people. Those of us who got into it, fell in love. And many didn't. No problem either way :)

I think you had to be a child at the time. I’d prefer to flick myself in the sack than have to sit through a HP movie.

Fuck Harry Potter.

Harry Potter is, technically speaking, not a good series. However, it has good reason to be so well loved- it has characters that you root for, a world that, despite its inconsistencies, feels attractive and welcoming, and, most importantly, *exceptional* suspension of disbelief.

Drinker is harsh? Harry Potter have world wide societies that introduce children in to black magic and occultism. It's not the same when you fight against evil and fight evil with the evil itself like HP is showing. There's a huge difference.

@@draco6349 Yes, it is a good series. It has a good story, well written characters, an absorbing world-building. JK Rowling isn’t a perfect writer, there’s definitely some plot holes, but she compensates them with an effective storytelling that hooks the reader. The fact that millions of people, children and adults alike, were hooked in its time, is a testament of how much of a good series it is.

@@hayabusaorlovina2761 ah yes, the "I'm still living during the satanic panic" argument. It's *fiction.* There is nothing wrong with magic in fiction. Just because Harry Potter uses the term "witch" in a *fictional* context doesn't make it actual witchcraft.

you would be too if you didnt get that letter

i agree with you. i can see the appeal to kids but I never cared for it myself.

Because I read the books growing up I still have a super soft spot for the Harry Potter series. Harry has the thickest plot armor I’ve ever seen, but other than that the characters and the world are extremely interesting to me. I treat the movies as an entirely different thing because they butcher the books mostly (which is understandable given that they have to cram 500+ page books into a 2 hour movie usually). I understand people not liking the series though. It does kinda make me laugh when someone takes an extreme viewpoint and says they hate the series (while also hurting my soul just a little bit haha)

The books were solid............the later movies were ass though: they did a terrible job of explaining key plotpoints. If you didnt read the books, you would have been lost watching the movies

@@joeo4496 I still don't know wth for 6 movies they told us that you can only kill someone with avada cadavra, and if you do that your soul is lost forever or something like that, and in the last movie ron's mum executes helena boham carter with some other spell and it was all cool. Either you can or you don't. And if you can you could have saved so many lives... Also the second Dumbledor was so bad. The first one wasn't great either, but second one had like no class at all, no charisma, just some homeless dirty hippie in dress.

@@joeo4496 I watched the movies not the books and in my opinion the last one was the best movie. the 7th one could've been wrapped up quicker and the 6th movie felt more like a soap opera then a harry Potter movie but other then that they were still solid. Especially over the 1st 2 movies

a little harsh. but c'mon HP has had its day in the sun, lets let LoTR be #1 again.

@@pOOL_pANTS I agree, they fucked up Grindewald vs Dumbledore story anyway... but with Amazon's Rings of Power... These are the dark times for our favourite franchises.

ya it's a little harsh. still a well loved juggernaut of a franchise, but wish LOTR was biggger

My issue with Harry Potter is Rowling needed some serious rewrites in her works to make them function properly. It's also clear she didn't plan anything out from the beginning.

@@pittland44 world building is terrible as Mauler said in another livechat

Hey, just stopped past to say, Fuck Harry Potter. 😃

@@pOOL_pANTS Tbh, I never really liked HP for world building, it was always the characters that drew me in. The main trio, as well as their family and friends, and watching how they and their relationships grew together was what kept me interested in the series all those years. LOTR is a massively different beast.

That's a far better way to catch someone's interest ngl

@@thanosnoctem4473 Not as good as fighting vampires with a painball gun with pellets filled with garlic powder and holy water

Dresden be using all kinds of shit lol he be fuckin Chicago up

Dresden by Jim Butcher? I'm not familiar, is this a similar genre?

@@pOOL_pANTSwizard private detective who lives in Chicago has to deal with anything and everything the supernatural world throws at him. lots of good intrigue, action, angst, noire, and worldbuilding/magic that's a lot better thought out than HP

I honestly think the Hobbit should have been two regular length movies (90-120 minutes a piece so approximately 4 hours total). That would have been enough time to properly flesh everything out and hit the major story elements, but not so long and drawn out (especially the final battle which was way, way too long). The problem was that they wanted another trilogy and there just wasn't enough material in the book to do three movies. Whereas LOTR the issue is how do you not cut out too many things while keeping the story cohesive and committed to the source material.

I will say where Hobbit failed for me was two fold. It ended up being more "fantastical' than lotr, as in the battle scenes. Lotr was gritty and realistic as it could be when we had to run and fight. In Hobbit, everything was more choreographed and serendipitous. They treated fighting, or tossing weapons, or movement like they did the "Blunt the Knives" scene. Everything was perfect. They could jump or flip or bounce anything perfectly. Then the final movie. I thought the battle portion was going to be styled like Gondor or Helms Deep. Just in the chaos, checking in on members if they make it or don't, Thorin fighting with 14 spears and arrows on him, or whatever it was in the books. Fili and Kili were done absolutely dirty, both just kinda...getting hit and sitting there until they were finished off. Cuz a dwarf won't be biting and kicking and scratching if they have to. We won't even go into Legolas and Tauriel. I enjoyed the first two, but the fight scenes were very odd to me after the quality of Lotr, and if you have some 14 main characters and 5 political forces you gotta stay focused and not a characters and subplots

@@dflaming1371 Well said.

HP is enjoyable. The Hobbits movie should have been 1 movie. But you gotta milk that gravy train!

I've heard the same. The books are more enjoyable. However, do you think it translated well to the big screen? I still found the movies enjoyable despite never having read the books.

@pOOL_pANTS I think they translated amazingly well. Honestly, those movies are extremely impressive. The set design, production design, costume design, soundtrack, CGI, and practical effects, they were clearly made with passion. When it comes to how well they adapted the books, I'd say really well. The movies are missing some details, but overall, they form a complete saga with a beginning, middle, and an end.

@@AimForMyHead81 wonderful! i always felt the movies were magical but didnt know how much they were able to capture it from the books. I think its difficult to take the written word and translate it to a visual medium. thanks for your comment!

he has nice eyes

J K Rowling didn't write that😄

@@hanantkm she wasn't the primary writer but she signed off on it and co wrote it with jack thorne and john tiffany

@@undeade.t7044 She didn't even co-write. Rowling just signed for the money. Jack and John wrote it

could you elaborate? are you referring to the fantastic beasts series?

he's right about 105% of the time

I think both works can be enjoyed for different reasons. thank you for sharing your thoughts

he's a little drunk, living up to his name sake

please elaborate...

i agree fully. HP is good on its own. But there is no comparison with LoTR. LoTR is in another league, another plane of existence, another caliber of excellence.

Until the later books where half the characters are killed off. It gets pretty dark.

@@matthewsmith3078 now that's another story

well put.

“I have blocked your spell, wizard 🥴”

I thought that was Chronicles of Narnia's job....

@@osmanyousif7849 It is. But nobody warned JK Rowling of that fact.

The plot to HP isn't even similiar to Lotr. It can't be a rip off just because it's the same genre when it's not even remotely similar 🙄. Sure by that dumb logic, LOTR is a rip off of Beowulf 🤦

that actually explains why.

HP is enjoyable, but do you like it better than LoTR?

...you missed three movies.

@@moonlitskylight5740 Jesus, how many did they make?

@@samblack5313 there are eight (8) "Harry Potter" movies. They are based on the seven (7) "Harry Potter" books. There are also additional "Fantastic Beasts" series.

@@satanbrony9235 Crazy.. I haven’t seen a single one of them.

@@samblack5313 someone’s been living under a fking rock damn The Harry Potter movies are literally the best Watched them at least more then 20 times each

neato. what about The Prestige?

@@pOOL_pANTS, that movie’s outstanding.

that's a fair take.

agreed

same! I heard the books are more well rounded and makes more sense.

I agree. HP seems tailored more for kids. LoTR seems more adult-ish. Both are enjoyable to me.

sue us both. i like them both.

I think both can be enjoyable for different reasons.

His comparison is likely to the original LoTR trilogy. I have never seen the amazon's show. I don't think I ever will.

i agree. the first movies were happy and then later got dark and more sombre.

yes!

Lol i never realized this. The movies dont portray Asian people in a negative light do they? I assume the books maybe a little more negative stereotyping.

ya they're fine 5th grade level stories. But a large population sees it as the BEST fantasy ever.. i guess its the lease common demonator pop music problem: the simpler , the more people can relate. but it does not mean better.

nice. thank you!

Lol, great catch phrase

which part? HP > LoTR ?

⁠@@pOOL_pANTS LOTR > HP.

Saying trans people can't have periods isn't transphobic though?

that's a fair take! sometimes you grow out of it, other times you grow to appreciate aspects of things we viewed as younger versions of ourselves. i think it can all be enjoyed in different ways.

that's a great and interesting take. Although, im not sure how you conflated the vote D and vote R within all of this.

fair point. i enjoyed it and can understand the mass appeal. it is maybe a product of the times. maybe if the Drinker had grown up with it he may feel different about it? 🎱🩳

Interesting take! ive never read the books so I have no opinion. But I found both LoTR and HP movies to be enjoyable for different reasons.

i agree both are enjoyable for different reasons

bravo

i dont think he hates harry potter on its own. but compared to LoTR and how large it's franchise has grown is inexplicable large. It's frustrating to see something as amazing as LoTR and then right next to it, there's HP that was written for children become the dominant wizard story.

@@pOOL_pANTS so it might be envy.

​@@pOOL_pANTS Comparing Harry Potter to LoTR in my opinion is like Star Wars to Star trek; both of them are set in space, but the specific genre is different (Star Wars is Space Fantasy while Star Trek is Science Fiction)

I think both are enjoyable for different reasons.

Lol i think his opinion is exclusive of Amazon's work because it wasn't written nor approved by Tolkien.

i believe he is referencing both. i found HP to be enjoyable but in a different way than how i enjoyed LoTR.

the scriptures, like from the Bible?

Whoever said that is talking through their hat.

ya i think HP is more accessible in this regard. It's a lot easier reading and therefore more mass appeal. LoTR first two movies were great. I agree the third one kind of fell flat but it was still a great conclusion. david yates did the ending of LoTR? thought it was Peter Jackson all the way?

@@pOOL_pANTS David Yates did the last movie in the Harry Potter series, that's the one I was referring to. The LOTR movies directed by Peter Jackson are brilliant. My only wish is that he'd stuck closer to the book in the chapter "Strider" which I think would have been much better if he''d stayed closer to how Tolkien wrote it.

You never read the books

I've only watched the movies and enjoyed both for different reasons. I think every generation should have new fresh ideas that introduce fantasy concepts. Science Fiction vs Fantasy is difficult to compare. I'd prefer to evaluate each of those in their own arenas as they hardly go hand in hand with anything.

I think they can be equally enjoyable for different reasons. I'm not sure they should be compared, but I understand the temptation to compare them because of the generic fantasy genre overlap.

HP fans do seem a little too fanatical about HP. But, I assume a similar generalization could be applied to all literary works if only viewing the small subset of hardcore fans. I think soemone can enjoy both works equally for different reasons. Similarly, both works can have flaws depending on the person and their perception.

Lol. Which Star Balls was your Bavorite?

lol yes

haha well i liked the rest of the series. i thought it wrapped up nicely although it could have been better.

amen

Fuck Harry Potter.

i find it entertaining on its own merit. but certainly not in the same league as LoTR

@@pOOL_pANTS Honestly , I just took the kids to the watch Harry Potter .. even they out grew that but LOTR is the in a different league.

how so?

😂😂😂

Lol, great comment.

Yeah, you didn’t read the books or watch the movies if you say Harry is a Mary Sue

But Harry Potter doesn't overshadow every other character like a Mary Sue character would do like Rey. Did we forget that in the 4th book, everyone in Hogwarts got tired of Harry being in the spotlight?

Harry felt like Mary Sue, shall we call it a Harry Sue? i agree, the LoTR characters were pretty well fleshed out with satisfying arcs

I see. Ive never read the books but found the movies enjoyable.

LOL! great comment

haha ya

does the Critical Drinker remind you of Matt Damon? I've never heard this comparison until now. Thank you for your comment.

interesting. you should bring that up to the Drinker on his next live chat

I think Narnia is a much better series for kids personally. I've always loved Narnia, even as an adult. It's one of those kids things that is just so well done and so well written that you can enjoy it just as much as an adult. I can't say the same for Harry Potter though. I got into Harry Potter in my early 20s, but after reading all the books, I just couldn't help seeing all the plot holes, retcons, plot conveniences, and then there's the whole litany of minor characters that could have been developed to develop the story so much further, but they were squandered opportunities. I think it could've worked if it had stayed fun magical adventures like the first two books were. But it didn't, and even in the first two books there were so many plot conveniences, and so many situations where you are just left as an adult scratching your head. By the time it gets into the third and definitely the fourth book, when she starts dealing with "serious business", it becomes very clear that she is an author that just doesn't have the talent and competency as an author to be able to "grow with her readers" as she attempted to do. I have seen this done by other more competent authors and it can be done and pulled off successfully, but I don't think JK has the competency all the talent to be able to do that. And therefore, because as an adult reader I see so many of these problems in the Harry Potter books, I just can't keep reading them any more like I did in my early 20s. Where is Narnia, it is clearly a kids story and it doesn't attempt to be anything else. CS Lewis is a writer that craps all over J.K. Rowling, and it shows. He sticks to his kids stories being just that… Kids stories, and he doesn't attempt to "grow with his readers". He sticks to kids stories and they are so well written and you can appreciate them that they are kids stories that I can quite happily read the Narnia books as an adult and enjoy them.

i enjoyed both LoTR and HP. Never read either of their respective books. How do you feel about Harry Potter movies?

we agree. you can actually like both, or one or the other, or dislike both. all is good. 🎱🩳

i think they're different and should be assessed differently. that said, I agree with you. LoTR is the greater. 🎱🩳

Lol, fair. to each their own.

it certainly has more mass appeal since it was written for 5th grade reading level. no disagreements here

Of course it's more approachable, it was written for young kids who don't have developed vocabulary skill. If you are reading Tolkien you better have your stuff together.😊

Also has something to do with how hp was written a century later. I personally found the LOTR books a chore to sit through. An interesting read because I liked the universe, but I'm not reading it again anytime soon.

@@pOOL_pANTS the first couple maybe, but the later books are for a more teenage/young adult audience.

@@harshmudhar96 I found the first 50 pages of Fellowship to drag on quite a bit but it does pick up a bit after that.

It's kind of a trend in that demographic at the moment to be negative, it attracts people and new subscribers.

I’m not familiar with the reference. Where is this from?

i need to check them out! Thanks

appreciate your honesty and contribution.