I was going to read that, but I saw the movie ... and it was ... neither very dark nor very good.  Kinda liked the Polar Bears.  Sorta.
Anyway, didn't read it.

In terms of what is dark, I really liked Lloyd Alexander's 'Taran Wanderer' series, which I thought was pretty dark.

One of the books had a long quest where the hero finds a 'mirror' which is a pool which shows you your reflection, and the hero realizes his mortality.  Plus lots of harsh things happened to him to push him into the hero role.  Quite a good read, kept all the books for a re-read.  Haven't done it yet.  Def kids books, too.

Oh ugh, ugh no! You cannot base your opinion of the His Dark Materials series on that travesty. It ruined EVERYTHING.

Read the books. Trust me. They are amazing. Just read them. Come back and talk to me when you're done. :D

Lloyd Alexander hm? His works have crossed my radar several times, but I never actually picked up any of his books. Tell you what, I will track down this "Taran Wanderer" series of which you speak, if you promise to read Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" series. Then we can trade opinions. It will be fun. ^_^

NO NO NO!!! The movie didn't even come close to the books!! It dosen't even have the best character in it!

Taran wanderer...That's black couldron and such right?

Doesn't have a lot of the characters, combines others in completely unacceptable ways, changes orders of events, changes the import of events, eliminates some of the most important scenes. Yeah. I really hate that movie... except for one thing: I loved how they did the daemons.

Forgive me, I misnamed -- 'Chronicles of Prydain', not 'Taran Wanderer' series.
Regardless, amazing.

I'm not committing to reading His Dark Materials unless the book comes my way.
Right now reading a pre-release of Neil Stephenson's newest book, REAMDE.
I like his books, read most of the slender ones, but miss the days when he was *heavily* edited!
Yeesh!
(I refused to read that trilogy of tomes he wrote...  But I did read 'Cryptonomicon' ...
and regretted it, bc around pg 480 Stephenson just seems bored of the story and
has most of the interesting characters randomly die.  *Very frustrating.*

I feel really dumb because I thouroughly enjoyed the Pendragon Series, then found out it was for 5th graders T-T

That series was a weird rollercoaster of quality for me.

Anyways, reading something intended for kids isn't bad.  Just look at the popularity of Harry Potter with adults.

Yeah, I liked the Artemis Fowl books when I was in college... still do, if I'm being honest.

They're not super high-quality reading or anything, but the story and characters amuse me and make me grin.

Yeah, but remember that the series took about a decade to write. Kids grew up with Harry, so the subject matter got more and more adult as the series progressed and the books got longer.

P.S. Tanner, I also really enjoyed the Pendragon Series.

LIKE! :D

Although I do agree that DJ did a whole rollercoster of different styles... he went from non-graphic to a really graphic (Black Waters) which really threw me.

It did?  Huh!  I didn't read any more books after Book 1 (I tried... but stopped with disgust/disdain), but I did see the last movie where the baddie was shouting 'Avracadavra' all over the place, no one lost their virginity, and I don't believe we heard even one curse word.

Not that this makes adult content, but -- I didn't see any particularly adult content in the movie, except a fairly dull movie *chock full of CG*.
I also watched a behind the scenes interview, where I was stunned to hear a filmmaker say the challenge of CG is to make it look real!!!  Sorry dudes, but you failed -- nothing in the CG of Harry Potter looked real (even the acting!  Gah!).

While we're talking about Harry Potter, aka Harry Pooper, 'the poop', and Hairy Twatter, I have to say ... I really liked Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, but I really thought everything about Harry Potter sucked a HUGE one.  I can't think of one piece where I thought, "Hey that's cool" (this incl's Quidditch, owls, muggles, wands, 'you know who', Hogwarts, etc -- even the earwax candy).  Generally I thought, "blech".

Anyone else agree on that assessment?

I liked Harry Potter, but the films have never been that great.  It's just fun to see the characters on the screen.  The first 2 or 3 books are the weakest by far, and I think other series such Pendragon or Percy Jackson have much better starts.  Once it picks up, however, there is a suspenseful read with likeable characters and an intricate plot that had been set before the first word was written.

The Deathly Hollows is somewhat dark containing elements such as death, sacrifice, betrayal, bigotry, hopelessness, gray morality, and surrender.  It may not be adult content, but it'll make you think.

I wasn't clear in the movies why the 3 objects were called the Deathly Hallows...  But, as I said, HP didn't draw me in & I didn't really give a crap.

I'm much more interested in why Tolkien made the super-item a ring, rather than a bunch of power items or a matching set...?  He did have the other rings, which apparently had some power, but the subsequent power is to drain your soul & make you a death rider.

Now THAT'S dark!

Deathlt Hollows is what made a wizard control/become death itself.

The cloak of invisibility
The stone/ring of ressurection
and the elder wand

I think that concept was my favorite part of the movie XD and I agree with Jioan. although Percy Jackson could never "hook" me. But the concept that a ring makes you a death rider, is pretty dark...

In reply to REkzkaRZ (msg #100):

The books did get more adult as the series progressed, although I wouldn't say that they ever progressed much past "teen fiction".

As for LotR... I actually liked the movies a lot more than I liked the books. I found the books to be dense, wordy, and generally difficult to get through. I also didn't see them as anything special. Just your typical fantasy-world fare of dragons, elves, wizards, dwarves and a quest to destroy evil. Honestly, I thought (and still do think) that the best part of the books (including The Hobbit) was 1.) Riddles in the Dark and 2.) the bit in The Fellowship of the Ring with Tom Bombadil. I was sad when they didn't put that in the movie, but I understand why they didn't.

Comparing Harry Potter to LotR, I found Harry Potter a LOT more readable and fun. It WAS something special, although if you ask me to explain why, I really couldn't explain it. It just  is. The movies not as much, but the books, definitely.

Finally: While it is understood that you don't particularly like Harry Potter it would still be nice if you could refrain from calling it insulting names. That wasn't necessary to make your point, and it's just plain rude. It would be appreciated if you would consider that in the future before posting, for ANY of your posts.

Honestly, I was going through those challenging teen years where you shun anything that makes you appear to like childish things, when HP was first becoming main stream--which was when I first discovered it. So I didn't really like it. I wanted it to be childish and beneath me.

But I went to the movie none the less, when it first came out, because a friend wanted to. And it was -decent- but I still didn't want to check like it.

Years later, when I grew up, and gave it a real shot. I like it. I read the first six books in like 2 weeks or something like that, and was absolutely addicted.

The HP mythos is very in depth and has many subtle and interesting ties to real world myths, including but not limited to boggarts, mandrake roots, etc..

The fact that different materials makes for different capabilities in wands was interesting and accurate to modern myths---ash for example, often used in myth--I want to say Achilles spear or something was made of ash.

And the deathly hallows myth was awesome. ( and it was explained in the movies..) It was very reminiscent to me of the "Death and the Soldier" Myth, and Perseus Myth, with the cap of invisibility.


As for Tolkien, I found his writing to be a bit dry too-- altough I loved the Hobbit as well, but his books are adored for the similar reason, in that there is massive depth within it. So much so that many of our favorite RP systems are strongly based around his works.

Quick example--- Don't even try and tell me that Evermeet--in the Forgotten Realms Campaign setting isn't the Island that the elves go when the leave Middle Earth.  And Warhammer Fantasy? >_> Well. That entire thing is just a blatant rip. I'm pretty sure halfling's leaf is straight up in the books. And the high elves ride eagles for a reason.


I'm ranting. e_e Sorry.

I liked reading LotR except for most of the second half of Two Towers.  They spent a whole chapter describing how they climbed a hill.  I understand why people didn't like them, but they deserve respect as the birthplace of modern fantasy no matter your opinion on the trilogy.

I loved the Tolkien books, felt the stories were incredible.

That's not to say that I didn't skip tons of description, and the endless songs.  Tolkien will spend pages describing foliage!

I agree about the absence of Tom Bombadil -- I was truly shocked that he didn't make the movie.  With one fell swoop, Peter Jackson (or the writers) eliminated Druids from Middle Earth!

Well, there was Radagast the Brown.  Oh wait, they cut him too.

I agree.  I've read LotR several times, but the key difference is that the movies are very compelling while the books are just an engaging fantasy world.  I find that's the difference with much of the fiction that is just interesting versus compelling.  Movies have a difficult time getting away with stories they do not make compelling because people don't have the patience.

I always thought it would be funny if someone rewrote LotR as a "book based on the movie" series, and then compare them to the original.

Sidenote on LOTR
-- the books are an adventure based on travel to unknown lands, with some battles.
-- the movies are mostly fantasy action movies which use the intricate plot to explain 3 movies worth of action.

Anyway -- back to new movies -- anyone wanna rip on Conan w/me?  Man that was a disappointing movie!
My g/f enjoyed one part, where Conan flexes his naked butt.

I laughed out loud at the beginning where they had a 'Conan in the womb' scene, but I'm not sure it was b/c I was entertained -- more I was horrified at how bad this movie would be.  (And it was baaaAAAaad!)

I'm still hopefull about John Carter (on Mars) movie, but odds are it'll suck the big one also.  If they can stay true to the books, we fans of the series have a slim chance...!  (BTW, great reads by Edgar Rice Burroughs, all are free/public domain now.)

So... basically it was just like Thor? Except in Thor it was shirtless Chris Hemsworth in tight, low-riding jeans... mmm... :D

Uh uh!  Sorry, I liked Thor.
In fact, I thought the producers handled Thor w/almost the perfect tone.

a) they kept it very similar to the comic
b) looked great
c) humorous, didn't take it's 'godliness' too seriously
d) all actors did fine
e) action was entertaining
f) plot was well-written
g) good villain
h) dialogue was pretty good

To counter those points with Conan (2011);

a) very little in common w/books
b) looked ok most of the time (except end scene almost looked like shadows on the green screen -- but by then no-one cared...!)
c) actually took itself seriously!  GAH
d) horrible acting (Conan didn't sound like a barbarian!, awkward sex scene, even more awkward ending scene)
e) action sucked (badly filmed, stupid, shakey-cam to the 10th power, bad choreography)
f) plot was *horrible* (in-utero birth scene, young Conan w/egg in mouth, father tortured as foreshadowing to villain fight)
g) villain was awful (Schwarzenegger-Conan got to fight a snake priest and a statue God!  Momoa-Conan he fights a weightlifter in a mask and some wimpy CG sand-spirits.  Yawn!)
h) dialogue was *horrible* ("you must understand the sword", "I live, I love, I slay, and I am content", "my nose!", etc)

While watching Conan, I kept thinking, 'I wonder if this would be more bearable if I had a squad of friends here to yell at this movie?' -- but I wasn't sure, b/c it truly sucked that badly!

I liked the Thor movie as well, but it was very very different from the comic book origin.

Rek sure hated Conan even more than I did.  The plot diversions bothered me most.  Though I thought the egg in the mouth scene was pretty cool on one hand, it had little to do with the plot other than to show Conan's innate prowess.

The utero scene was also irrelevant and should have been scrapped.

And yes, the bad guy and the final fight, although they did well with the action sequence/special effects, were a yawn because by then I never felt real danger or that this villain was all that horribly dangerous.

And yes, Momoa's accent (or lack thereof) made him seem like not a barbarian at all...and that probably bothered me most.  He was too intelligent and friendly.  Love scene wasn't awkward but it seemed to come out of nowhere and served minimal plot function that didn't make it seem natural.

Dialogue would have been better if they'd just had him keep his mouth shut and fight and grunt.