search results matching tag: harry potter

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (257)     Sift Talk (13)     Blogs (23)     Comments (381)   

10 Points For Gryffindor

poolcleaner says...

It seems logically funny -- Harry Potter is a wizard who sympathizes with Muggles and secretly positioned himself to be a suicide bomber.

Those who support magic are liberals and those Muggles who are anti-magic are right-wing. Harry Potter is portrayed as a right-wing extremist, which is a person who would bomb a magic school. Left-wing extremists, those who support the reverse extreme, would bomb a Muggle school. (Like Magneto's stance against non-mutants.)

Mordhaus said:

I don't know why this is funny, but it makes me laugh.

The Marvel Symphonic Universe

siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Marvel, Soundtrack, Star Wars, James Bond, Harry Potter' to 'Marvel, Soundtrack, Star Wars, James Bond, Harry Potter, Every Frame a Painting' - edited by eric3579

The Marvel Symphonic Universe

nock says...

An original score and AC/DC aren't the same thing...IMO, John Williams is the most consistent and memorable cinematic composer alive today. Scores for ET, Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, Goonies, Indiana Jones are all evocative.

Smart Parking Solution

Assassin's Creed Trailer

Mordhaus says...

Price of Persia made a large profit, but would you say it was a good movie? RE movies have done well, but I would say you would find most critics panned them badly. They certainly were not really related to the early RE games, other than biomod creatures and zombies. I wouldn't put the RE movies in the exact same category as Street Fighter, they aren't THAT bad.

I would also say that Milla had somewhat of a fanbase simply from the Fifth Element, Dazed and Confused, Zoolander, and The Messenger. I wouldn't say huge, but I was a fan of hers and I suffered through the first couple of RE movies simply because she was the female lead.

As far as games based on movie franchises, I would say mainly only Star Wars and LotR games have been really successful, although an argument could be made for the Lego games (Harry Potter, Batman, etc). There are some others that have been decent, but nothing spectacular I can recall off the top of my head.

As far as the worst conversion from game to movie, I would say it's a 3-way tie between Doom, Wing Commander, and Street Fighter.

newtboy said:

I find it interesting that you allude to Resident Evil, but put it in the same category as Street Fighter. I find the RE movies WAY better than the games, and they've certainly made money. Milla didn't have much of a fanbase when that series started...at least not as an actress.
Now movie games, games made from popular movie stories as tie in merchandise, nearly ALL suck....but I'm sure there's an exception to that rule as well.

Swiss Army Man

Vexus says...

Why do I feel like every movie Daniel Radcliffe does is him just trying to say, "Look I'm not just Harry Potter", and failing miserably?

10 Cloverfield Lane Trailer

poolcleaner says...

Exorcist 3 was way better than the second movie, although technically it is a sequel to the first.

Mad Max Fury Road was better than... well, all of the Mad Max movies.

Die Hard 3 was WAY better than the snooze fest sequel. Samuel L. Jackson, man.

Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country is WAY better than the original, 3, 4, and 5. So sometimes the sequel is good and then it takes 4 more movies before you get a good one in.

James Bond arguably got better with age. Maybe not the most recent ones, but Golden Eye was amazing. Great games can also be spawned from over making a franchise!

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is hands down the best of Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy. It wasn't just a western, it was an epic civil war movie in the west. And the ending with the Mexican stand off; soundtrack?!?! Hot damn! Not that the "sequel" sucked but the third was the BEST.

I know there are a couple good horror series that had a better third or fourth movie. Any Hellraiser is better than Hellraiser 2, same goes for Halloween. Though I can't say they were ever as good as their originals. It's still a hope I reserve for horror movies that make it past their shitty sequel.

The next Ring might be awesome. "Might." It's had a fairly massive career spanning 4 countries, 12 movies, 2 telvis ion series, 2 video games and a bunch of manga. Movies most people don't even know exist. I think the seventh iteration of the Ring (2002's American Ring) is the best.

And, while it might just technically count, it's worth noting that while i like Gaspar Noe's despair trilogy, his third movie Enter the Void is the only movie in the trilogy I can enjoy watching a third or fourth time. I once recommended his movies and alienated an entire office space. The only movie anyone enjoyed was his third movie.

Ghostbusters 3 will probably be better than 2. Blasphemy!! Hah, we will see. Girl power!

I think Batman also got better because of Nolan. Does that count? I mean, if a franchise goes on that long, it's all just sequels, despite the so-called canon and concept of "rebooting" a FAKE universe.

(Does Harry Potter count as the third movie in the Troll series?)

wraith said:

So the 3rd or 4th movies of these franchises were awesome while the sequel sucked?

Aliens vs. Predators I and II were good, while Predator 2 sucked?
Cant' agree whith you there.
Rambo 3 and John Rambo were good and Rambo 2 sucked?
I think they all sucked (except the first).
Jurassic Park 2 sucked while 3 and World were good?
I don't know, but I doubt it.
The Matrix Revolutions? Really?
I may be the only human being who hated all Matrix movies but I read of Matrix fans who wanted to scream at Neo to shut up while watchin M3 in the theatre. :-)

woman destroys third wave feminism in 3 minutes

Babymech says...

Just wanted to respond to show that I'm not ignoring this, but mainly just nodding my head. I don't consider myself a feminist, but I think that feminism is needed despite some of the excesses of its adherents, just like I don't consider myself a civil rights activists, but think that it's a needed movement despite some of the excesses of its adherents (I'm too lazy to be either a feminist or a civili rights activist).

I completely agree that the wage gap is real but incredibly hard to isolate, define and quantify, and that a lot of the intended measures to adress it can end up fucking over individuals while failing to adress the core issues. That, to me, means that we have to work smarter and harder, which some economists are doing. I just don't think CHS is the one leading that field forward, unfortunately.

And finally, death threats and threats of violence seem to me like they are almost synonymous with the internet. I find I can't draw any conclusions from the existence of threats of violence online, because if I did I would conclude that the following are all toxic cultures of death and violence: feminism, gaming, conservatism, progressivism, ISIS, Harry Potter, men's rights activism and environmentalism, to mention just a few. Of all of those I'm pretty sure it's only ISIS that actually represents a toxic culture of death.

enoch said:

@Babymech
alright!
/claps hands..
now we are getting somewhere!
is it time to make out yet?

on a good note.
we agree more than disagree.
so it appears anyways.we may vary on the particulars but i think it safe to assume we can agree on the bulk i.e:human rights,fairness and justice.

(or it may be because you are just as disgusted by those overly privileged whiners as i am,snapping their fingers and shouting about "safe places")

solidarity!!

anyways...
i used sommers as a reference because she identifies as a feminists.you may dispute if she is in fact a feminist but thats how she identifies.i thought i was being deliciously ironical,but i digress.

here is a far better,and bipartisan source for your consideration from 2011:https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Regional-Economist/October-2011/Gender-Wage-Gap-May-Be-Much-Smaller-Than-Most-Think

notice everything is sourced and noted.

the key in our discussion is how we comprehend data,and data in raw form can be just as confusing and misleading if the right questions are not asked,which makes it easy for us all to be manipulated (which i think you mentioned as well).

so just for the record:
i am not anti-feminist,but i am anti-bullshit,against weak and facile arguments to create an emotional response in order to promote a political agenda.

because we all lose in the end,and it detracts from the real issues and real grievances.

why certain rabid feminists thought it perfectly ok to threaten this woman with death and violence,and yet,with zero sense of self-aware irony will use the threat of violence to THEM to promote their politics.

all because she disagreed with them.

anyways..thanks for hanging in there mate.
ill be right over for our lil make out session.

Warcraft Trailer

Shepppard says...

That would've been suicide. It'd be like starting the movies for the Harry Potter series on book 4. Sure, you'd have a fanbase that knows the source material and would understand what's going on, but it would alienate everyone who hasn't read the books, and now they don't wanna go see it.

At least this way with it being (somewhat relatively close to) orcs vs humans, we establish the general base for what happens, so if it's a success they can continue down the story.

There's foreshadowing in the trailer anyway, the orc that sends the baby down the river, I'm guessing the baby is Thrall.

Which already kinda mucks up the storyline.. because that more involves parts of warcraft II.. Either way, I thought it looked pretty decent. I'm hoping a bit more work goes into making the orcs look a little more.. not CGI in a couple of those scenes, but I'll probably go see it.

shagen454 said:

This looks like shit to be honest. But, it looks like they are starting with Orcs vs. Humans, when they should have begun where we are now with Warcraft: undead, trolls, mages, warlocks, elves, lots of magic - etc etc.

Real Time with Bill Maher: Christianity Under Attack?

JustSaying says...

Three things I have to say, @bobknight33:
1. You're complaining about christianity being attacked. Ok, fine, I'll tell you something: I am tired of your religious beliefs invading my life like an middle eastern dictator a small, oily country. Oh, I have it good, I'm a straight, white middle-european man, I'm fine so far. Others are not. They're tired as well.
I can go on a meth-bender, marry one of the Kardashians in Vegas and annul the whole affair in less than a week. If I win the lottery, I can post on Craigslist and get myself a nice gold-digging whore who'll sign a certificate that makes us husband and wife if I'm willing to trade lackluster blowjobs for money. Best part, it ain 't prostitution if you're married, legally worldwide. Heck, I can even become an abusive piece of shit as long as I can beat her well enough so she won't complain to others.
Because marriage is sanctimonious.
If I was gay and would like to marry the guy of my dreams that I've been with for 20 years, that isn't possible. Because the book doesn't approve.
If my sister got raped, you people would force her to birth the child of her rapist. Her concerns don't matter, life is a holy gift from god. Care to explain to me the position of the catholic church (you know, those christians that make up the majority of christianity) on slavery during centuries slavery? How holy was life in all those european colonies back in the day with all these missionaries teaching the good book? What exactly was their statement as an organisation when millions or people were murdered during the third Reich?
All that silence but when it comes to abortion, you people show up with guns and show the value of this great gift by murdering doctors. Fuck my sisters concerns, right? It just rape, walk it off.
I'm well of, I could join the club as a full member anytime. As long as I'm not calling the cops on the pedophile priests and the self-loathing faggots can stand on their pulpits and tell little children they're broken. I could be among you.
But I have a conscience. I can't buy all that talk about love and forgiveness and ignore all that hatred and cruelty that is in the very basis of your beliefs, that wretched, old bible of yours.
I have to look that man in the mirror in the eyes.
The only way you can impose all that crap on me anymore if through the government. I believe your faith has as much place in there than Tom Cruise's. None.
The Prodigy said it best and I think the people who lived at the time the bible was written would agree: Invaders must die.
Your religion invades my rights as a human being.

2. Did he rise?
Nope, little, brown Jewish got killed. End of facts, begin of story. I don't trust the testimony of men (and I said this before) who consider a walkman witchcraft. People at that time could be convinced that they farted because they swallowed an angry spirit that wants to escape.
You book did a terrible job of explaining how the world came to be (we're golems that had so much incest that they inbred mankind), makes up the worst disastermovies (everything turns to Waterworld but we have a boat with a pair of every animal in existence [imagine all those different kinds of ants alone] and then incest till population is back up) and turns mushroomtrips/mental illness in supposedly accurate future predictions (you know it's the end of the world because none of the riders is called "Incest").
The only reason people buy into the mythology and the extended universe (where's that bible chapter about Satan ruling the Sarlac Pit and Santa being canon again? ) is because for centuries children were taught it at a young age. And then you told them not to question it as heretics get the stake. Ashes yes but not the quick Buffy way.
Don't get me wrong, I like that Jesus fellow and I'm willing to believe his basic message but let's be honest. If J.K. Rowling was born 2000 years earlier, we'd pray to Harry Potter and wear lightning shaped jewelery around our neck. You guys got big because the Roman empire made you relevant. That's it.

3. What's up with '53'? Is that the christian answer to '42'?

I found something I'd like for Xmas...maybe in the stocking?

Inception Retold by Mom

To J.K. Rowling, from Cho Chang

blahpook says...

And here you have it: "'Why exactly are all the main characters in ‘Frozen’ white?' my husband asked a white friend recently. She responded thoughtfully: 'Well, the movie is set in a Nordic, cold place — you know, it makes sense, right?' Annoyed, my husband countered, 'The movie has a talking snowman.' It’s funny, and sad, where we draw the lines for what’s acceptable in fantasy movies. Somehow a talking snowman makes more sense than, say, a black Norwegian."
"Fortunately, as children so often do, my son rose to the occasion. He bought his parents’ awkward explanation of how 'Harry Potter is a made-up character, and he could be any color.' Yes, for a moment, he quietly resisted; he knew that Harry wasn’t just any color in the movie. But then his enormous childhood imagination took over, and he decided he could be Harry for Halloween after all. I’m not sure I want to know whether my son imagined away Harry Potter’s whiteness or his own blackness."

Link to full article here.

ayn rand and her stories of rapey heroes

Trancecoach says...

Rand was certainly not a great writer (as is often the case with those who write novels in a language that isn't native to them). As such, there's no comparison between Rand's use of English and say, Dickens' (but you could probably say that about Dickens and almost anyone else, John Oliver included. And Harry Potter isn't much better than The Fountainhead! Or most popular fiction for that matter.)
I doubt most of Oliver's audience have read Crime and Punishment, or The Brothers Karamzov, or The Sound and the Fury. I doubt Oliver's fans are any more "intellectual" or well-read than Rand's, quite honestly.

But Rand didn't even believe in small government. Just limited government. She was certainly no anarchist. John Galt was, perhaps, but not Rand. (The character is not the author.) Both Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand learned from Ludwig Von Mises, and they took what they learned in very different directions.

Yet, most of Oliver's audience probably haven't even read Rand and she's hardly that much of a contemporary topic worth talking about.. So why would Oliver (HBO) want to spend valuable broadcast time talking about her? She wouldn't be a "thing" if they chose to ignore it, and yet they aren't. Why? Might this bit be (the $beneficiary of those who are) uneasy with a potential Rand Paul presidential run, thus needing a straw man with which to link him with "libertarians" and Ayn Rand?

All this "OMG Rand!" going around, and yet her work continues to stick around long after she's gone.. And will likely remain so, given ^programs^ (and commenters) like this and their unwillingness to let it go.

UPular



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon