That's about the only time you'll ever see the words "Nicholas Cage" and "Spectacular" together. Nick Cage has never been one of my favorite actors, and yet I always seem to enjoy his movies. Here's the rundown on the last three Nick Cage movies I viewed.
***Next***
Nick Cage does sci-fi! ...that about sums it up. The movie "Next" is actually pretty neat... but forgettable. The concept is cool - Cage can see two minutes into the future, allowing him to do little things like dodge bullets and cheat at cards. There's some great action scenes and fun special effects, but the movie doesn't really go anywhere interesting. Julianne Moore plays his main enemy, even though they're both "good guys". And Moore can't seem to act. I've always thought Moore was a good actress, ever since her pantsless scene in "Short Cuts"... er... I mean, ever since her minor role in "The Fugitive". But in "Next", apparently the director told her to just read her lines and try not to act. Anyway, Next is an okay movie that won't put you to sleep. It wouldn't hurt to add it to your Netflix queue, but I wouldn't drive to the video store just to rent it.
***GhostRider***
It's not as dumb as it looks.
I was skeptical of this one, mainly because the previews made it look silly, stupid, and goofy. And the Ghostrider is all those things, but in a good way. I'm sure the critics ripped this one to shreds, but really, do the critics even have fun at the movies any more? Ghostrider is a popcorn muncher, nothing more or less, and shouldn't be judged next to Academy Award winners.
Ghostrider is not as deep or memorable as the "Spider-Man" or "X-Men" movies. But it keeps you awake, unlike snore-fests "Hulk" and "Elektra". In comparing it to other comic book movies, I'd say it's closest to "The Fantastic Four" - which is another movie that has been undeservedly trashed by the critics.
Cage works much harder than the role really deserves. I respect that - he acts as though this amusement park ride is an "actual" movie. Actually, it's not just Cage, most of the acting in the movie is better than I would have required... except possibly for Cage's love interest - she's just as shallow as I would have expected.
The bad guys are two-dimensional and forgettable. The main bad guy is the vampire-like son of Satan, which you'd think would be enough to make him interesting, but it doesn't. That's a little disappointing, as a good cheesy movie should have an over-the-top bad guy.
Anyway, I liked the movie, but it's not one of those I'd see over and over. I would rather see it again than "Daredevil"... but I'd also rather get a prostate exam than sit through Daredevil again, so take that however you want.
Oh, and the Mortal Kombat reference.... awesome.
***Wicker Man***
Bad, good, who cares? The original was much, much better than this okay remake, and it still stands the test of time. I liked the new one, but there's simply no reason to see it over the old one, unless you're just the world's biggest Nick Cage fan. Of course, if none of your local video stores have a copy of the old one, the new one's not a bad substitute. You should be able to say you've seen at least one version, because it's just a neat story.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Rant on Retro-Gaming
Video games have come a long way. They're prettier than ever before, with more realism and depth than the makers of "Pong" ever would have thought possible. But that depth comes at a price - now that video games have more in common with books, I find I just don't have time to play them. While I like to get sucked into a good adventure game when I can, most of the time I just can't stick with one game long enough to play through it. Sometimes I just want to sit back and blow things up, without worrying about where to find the Star Crest to open the courtyard door. That's why I like arcade classics. Well, nostalgia's a big factor too, but mostly I like the fact that I can just turn them on and play.
But I hate, hate, hate the way they're sold! What is the deal with putting ten classic arcade games (only three of which are still fun) on one disc (or cart), labelling it "Volume 1", then selling it for $40? Guys, these games have been paid for. You made your money back on these games decades ago. The people who programmed them have retired. Those of you currently working at the company aren't even actually working when you release these classic compilations. There's simply no reason to have six volumes of Namco's Greatest Hits, when each disk contains 5% games and 95% "History of Namco" videos nobody's going to watch.
No wonder emulation is so popular. You can fit hundreds of ROMs on a CD, and the same ROMs work on different emulators/systems. Meanwhile, I've bought "Joust" like, 14 times for various video game systems. That's a lot of money for a game that takes about 30 kb of hard drive space. But it's not even the money that really gets to me, it's the presentation. These are "twitch" games, and as such, I like to play one for a few minutes then switch to another. It's less fun if I keep having to change out CDs/DVDs/cartridges, so having more games on one disk really does make it better. Plus, the "turn on and play" advantage is becoming less and less of a feature, since you have to sit through 10 minutes of developer logos and loading screens when you first put in the CD.
Luckily I tend to do my retro-gaming on cartridge-based handheld systems, so loading isn't a factor, but there's still a few minutes between the time I first put in the cartridge, and when I actually get to play the game. I understand that everyone wants to get credit, and everyone wants you to see their pretty little company logo. But again, these games were programmed 20 years ago. What the game company is doing now is basically burning them onto a CD for us. Why does it take 8 development teams to do this, and does each one have to show me their logo?
The worst part is, the game companies don't get accurate feedback on these complaints. If a compilation doesn't sell well, then the company says, "Well, I guess retrogaming isn't really 'in' right now." Never mind that they were trying to sell six ancient games for $30. But a compilation doesn't really have to sell that well for them to make a profit, since production costs are so low. If a compilation makes the slightest profit, then they rush to find six more old games for the next volume - making extra-sure that only two are popular classics, and the other four are obscure rubbish.
I think the game companies are starting to take the hint, as I have started to see a few classics disks with larger libraries. The PS2 collections have more games on them than the PS1 collections; the DS collections have more games on them than the GBA collections. I'm sure the game companies would like us to believe that this is due to the higher capacities of the newer formats, but we're not that stupid. I've seen the bootleg GBA carts with nearly 200 8-bit NES games on them. And yet Capcom releases a "Capcom Mini Mix" collection for the GBA with 3 (Wow, 3!) 8-bit NES games on it. It was a fair selection - Bionic Commando, Strider, and Mighty Final Fight - but they really could have tried harder.
To me, the worst offender is Nintendo itself. A few years ago they released a series of "Nintendo Classics" for the GBA, all re-releases of 8-bit NES games, at around $20 each. They could have easily fit the entire set on one cart and still made a profit, but that's just not how they think. And let's not forget how they kept re-releasing the classic Mario games for the GBA, one at a time. Why not "Super Mario All-Stars", like they had on the SNES? I'm sure you know the answer to that one, and it has nothing to do with cartridge capacity.
I recently purchased "Konami Classics Arcade Hits" for the DS, and it's not bad. It has 15 games on it, about half of which are still fun to play. My biggest beef with it is that I was hoping it would make their previous GBA collection, "Konami Arcade Advanced", obsolete. But no, the new one includes some of the games on the previous cart, but not all of them; and the GBA cart has a neat "updated graphics" option for a couple of the games on it.
I also have "Retro Atari Classics", which takes an interesting concept and does nothing good with it. They took ten classic arcade games (of which only about 3 are still fun), and let three famous grafitti artists give them a visual makeover. The problem is, only one of the grafitti artists is any good. But at least it gives you the option of playing with the original graphics instead, in case you don't like the Remix version. Another problem (on the DS version, anyway) is that they overuse the stylus. The stylus actually makes sense as a trackball alternative, but they didn't even give the option of using the joypad instead. And that's just mean. While I think the touch screen is one of the coolest features of the DS, I do wish the game companies wouldn't force us to use it as a primary means of control.
One of the better classics compilations, at least in presentation, is "Activision Anthology" for the GBA. Now we're talking about a serious collection, with over 50 games on it. Unfortunately, they're Atari 2600 games, which means they're extremely dated. But Activision always did make the best games for the Atari (Pitfall, Chopper Command, etc), so you're still getting the cream of the crop. And again, twitch games - you really don't need good graphics to have fun.
One of the most confusing is Namco's GBA releases. First they released "Namco Museum" with the following games: Galaxian, Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga, Pole Position, and Dig Dug. Then they released "Namco Museum 50th Anniversary" which included Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga, Dig Dug, and Bosconian. For the same system. I just don't get it. Hopefully when they get around to making a DS collection, they'll use their heads.
But I hate, hate, hate the way they're sold! What is the deal with putting ten classic arcade games (only three of which are still fun) on one disc (or cart), labelling it "Volume 1", then selling it for $40? Guys, these games have been paid for. You made your money back on these games decades ago. The people who programmed them have retired. Those of you currently working at the company aren't even actually working when you release these classic compilations. There's simply no reason to have six volumes of Namco's Greatest Hits, when each disk contains 5% games and 95% "History of Namco" videos nobody's going to watch.
No wonder emulation is so popular. You can fit hundreds of ROMs on a CD, and the same ROMs work on different emulators/systems. Meanwhile, I've bought "Joust" like, 14 times for various video game systems. That's a lot of money for a game that takes about 30 kb of hard drive space. But it's not even the money that really gets to me, it's the presentation. These are "twitch" games, and as such, I like to play one for a few minutes then switch to another. It's less fun if I keep having to change out CDs/DVDs/cartridges, so having more games on one disk really does make it better. Plus, the "turn on and play" advantage is becoming less and less of a feature, since you have to sit through 10 minutes of developer logos and loading screens when you first put in the CD.
Luckily I tend to do my retro-gaming on cartridge-based handheld systems, so loading isn't a factor, but there's still a few minutes between the time I first put in the cartridge, and when I actually get to play the game. I understand that everyone wants to get credit, and everyone wants you to see their pretty little company logo. But again, these games were programmed 20 years ago. What the game company is doing now is basically burning them onto a CD for us. Why does it take 8 development teams to do this, and does each one have to show me their logo?
The worst part is, the game companies don't get accurate feedback on these complaints. If a compilation doesn't sell well, then the company says, "Well, I guess retrogaming isn't really 'in' right now." Never mind that they were trying to sell six ancient games for $30. But a compilation doesn't really have to sell that well for them to make a profit, since production costs are so low. If a compilation makes the slightest profit, then they rush to find six more old games for the next volume - making extra-sure that only two are popular classics, and the other four are obscure rubbish.
I think the game companies are starting to take the hint, as I have started to see a few classics disks with larger libraries. The PS2 collections have more games on them than the PS1 collections; the DS collections have more games on them than the GBA collections. I'm sure the game companies would like us to believe that this is due to the higher capacities of the newer formats, but we're not that stupid. I've seen the bootleg GBA carts with nearly 200 8-bit NES games on them. And yet Capcom releases a "Capcom Mini Mix" collection for the GBA with 3 (Wow, 3!) 8-bit NES games on it. It was a fair selection - Bionic Commando, Strider, and Mighty Final Fight - but they really could have tried harder.
To me, the worst offender is Nintendo itself. A few years ago they released a series of "Nintendo Classics" for the GBA, all re-releases of 8-bit NES games, at around $20 each. They could have easily fit the entire set on one cart and still made a profit, but that's just not how they think. And let's not forget how they kept re-releasing the classic Mario games for the GBA, one at a time. Why not "Super Mario All-Stars", like they had on the SNES? I'm sure you know the answer to that one, and it has nothing to do with cartridge capacity.
I recently purchased "Konami Classics Arcade Hits" for the DS, and it's not bad. It has 15 games on it, about half of which are still fun to play. My biggest beef with it is that I was hoping it would make their previous GBA collection, "Konami Arcade Advanced", obsolete. But no, the new one includes some of the games on the previous cart, but not all of them; and the GBA cart has a neat "updated graphics" option for a couple of the games on it.
I also have "Retro Atari Classics", which takes an interesting concept and does nothing good with it. They took ten classic arcade games (of which only about 3 are still fun), and let three famous grafitti artists give them a visual makeover. The problem is, only one of the grafitti artists is any good. But at least it gives you the option of playing with the original graphics instead, in case you don't like the Remix version. Another problem (on the DS version, anyway) is that they overuse the stylus. The stylus actually makes sense as a trackball alternative, but they didn't even give the option of using the joypad instead. And that's just mean. While I think the touch screen is one of the coolest features of the DS, I do wish the game companies wouldn't force us to use it as a primary means of control.
One of the better classics compilations, at least in presentation, is "Activision Anthology" for the GBA. Now we're talking about a serious collection, with over 50 games on it. Unfortunately, they're Atari 2600 games, which means they're extremely dated. But Activision always did make the best games for the Atari (Pitfall, Chopper Command, etc), so you're still getting the cream of the crop. And again, twitch games - you really don't need good graphics to have fun.
One of the most confusing is Namco's GBA releases. First they released "Namco Museum" with the following games: Galaxian, Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga, Pole Position, and Dig Dug. Then they released "Namco Museum 50th Anniversary" which included Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga, Dig Dug, and Bosconian. For the same system. I just don't get it. Hopefully when they get around to making a DS collection, they'll use their heads.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
She's Got a Chicken to Ride...
This is how lunatics entertain themselves:
A "Mondegreen" is a misunderstood song lyric. The term was invented when a certain author misheard "upon the green" as "mondegreen". The example I hear of most is "'Scuse me while I kiss this guy" instead of "kiss the sky". You can find mondegreen web sites all over the web, just Google "misheard song lyrics". There's a good database at www.kissthisguy.com.
While some are more well-known than others, none of them are universal. There's oodles of different ways people sing the lyrics to "Louie Louie". And just ask 10 different people what Springsteen says after "Blinded by the light..." I think my favorite Mondegreen is the one Phoebe mentions in an episode of Friends, the Elton John song that says, "Hold me closer Tony Danza..."
I have a slight hearing problem. Noises aren't too quiet; I hear volume just fine. But if there's any interfering noises, I have trouble picking out the sounds I want to hear. So I have a big problem with song lyrics, because the instruments are too distracting. As such, I can have a favorite song that I've heard for years, without ever having memorized the lyrics. So I got in the habit of making up my own.
You probably pity KJ about right now.
These days, most of my alternate lyrics aren't really "mondegreens", as I've pretty much gotten into the habit of singing the wrong words to every song on the radio, whether I understand the actual words or not. You can probably blame Weird Al. He's always been one of my favorite performers, and ever since I first heard of him in the 80s, I've been coming up with my own alternate lyrics for popular songs. The main difference being, I suck at it. In college, my buddy Alan and I came up with lots of odd lyrics, and we completely rewrote "Here's a Quarter" with our version titled, "Ned McWhorter Just Fell Down The Stairs". ("Call someone who glistens... and might live on Spam... or one of them chocolate eclairs...")
A couple of years later I started singing this version of the song "I Swear": "I swear... Like a sailor with tacks in his boot... I swear... Like a soldier who just shot his foot... Whenever there's trouble, whenever there's pain, Whenever I just washed the car and it rains, I swear..."
But most of the time it's not nearly that complex or thought out. There's a lot of commonly used words in songs that I just automatically substitute with other words, often without even thinking about it. For example, I often replace "love" with "slug". This works well both as a noun ("You Can't Hurry Slugs") and a verb ("Slug The One You're With"). However, if the context has someone "falling in" love, then I replace love with "lava" ("Don't Fall In Lava").
I also replace "peace" with "peas", for example: "Carry on my wayward son... There'll be peas when you have corn." One of the sillier things I do is replace "way" with "curds" (curds and whey, get it?), as in, "Oooooh, baby I love your curds..." On the rare occasion I hear the song "I Fall To Pieces, I sing the words, ""I swallow Reese's..." Lets see... instead of "Heaven Is A Place On Earth", I sing, "Heaven Is A Place With Smurfs."
One December at work, the radio station would alternate between Christmas songs and classic rock. It was kind of surreal, one minute you'd be listening to "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer", the next minute they'd be playing the Stones' "Paint It Black". Which led me to start singing, "I see a reindeer and I want it painted black..." Now that you've read that, I dare you to try to hear the song again without thinking that.
Sometimes I'll come up with something subconsiously, and sing it without even knowing I'm singing it, regardless of who's around. Luckily only KJ was in the car when I belted out this highly perverse alternate verse for "I Will Follow Him" (Warning, not for young eyes): "I love him, I love him, I love him, and when he comes I'll swallow, I'll swallow, I'll swallow..." I've probably ruined that song for you for life.
Anybody else got any favorites they want to post here?
A "Mondegreen" is a misunderstood song lyric. The term was invented when a certain author misheard "upon the green" as "mondegreen". The example I hear of most is "'Scuse me while I kiss this guy" instead of "kiss the sky". You can find mondegreen web sites all over the web, just Google "misheard song lyrics". There's a good database at www.kissthisguy.com.
While some are more well-known than others, none of them are universal. There's oodles of different ways people sing the lyrics to "Louie Louie". And just ask 10 different people what Springsteen says after "Blinded by the light..." I think my favorite Mondegreen is the one Phoebe mentions in an episode of Friends, the Elton John song that says, "Hold me closer Tony Danza..."
I have a slight hearing problem. Noises aren't too quiet; I hear volume just fine. But if there's any interfering noises, I have trouble picking out the sounds I want to hear. So I have a big problem with song lyrics, because the instruments are too distracting. As such, I can have a favorite song that I've heard for years, without ever having memorized the lyrics. So I got in the habit of making up my own.
You probably pity KJ about right now.
These days, most of my alternate lyrics aren't really "mondegreens", as I've pretty much gotten into the habit of singing the wrong words to every song on the radio, whether I understand the actual words or not. You can probably blame Weird Al. He's always been one of my favorite performers, and ever since I first heard of him in the 80s, I've been coming up with my own alternate lyrics for popular songs. The main difference being, I suck at it. In college, my buddy Alan and I came up with lots of odd lyrics, and we completely rewrote "Here's a Quarter" with our version titled, "Ned McWhorter Just Fell Down The Stairs". ("Call someone who glistens... and might live on Spam... or one of them chocolate eclairs...")
A couple of years later I started singing this version of the song "I Swear": "I swear... Like a sailor with tacks in his boot... I swear... Like a soldier who just shot his foot... Whenever there's trouble, whenever there's pain, Whenever I just washed the car and it rains, I swear..."
But most of the time it's not nearly that complex or thought out. There's a lot of commonly used words in songs that I just automatically substitute with other words, often without even thinking about it. For example, I often replace "love" with "slug". This works well both as a noun ("You Can't Hurry Slugs") and a verb ("Slug The One You're With"). However, if the context has someone "falling in" love, then I replace love with "lava" ("Don't Fall In Lava").
I also replace "peace" with "peas", for example: "Carry on my wayward son... There'll be peas when you have corn." One of the sillier things I do is replace "way" with "curds" (curds and whey, get it?), as in, "Oooooh, baby I love your curds..." On the rare occasion I hear the song "I Fall To Pieces, I sing the words, ""I swallow Reese's..." Lets see... instead of "Heaven Is A Place On Earth", I sing, "Heaven Is A Place With Smurfs."
One December at work, the radio station would alternate between Christmas songs and classic rock. It was kind of surreal, one minute you'd be listening to "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer", the next minute they'd be playing the Stones' "Paint It Black". Which led me to start singing, "I see a reindeer and I want it painted black..." Now that you've read that, I dare you to try to hear the song again without thinking that.
Sometimes I'll come up with something subconsiously, and sing it without even knowing I'm singing it, regardless of who's around. Luckily only KJ was in the car when I belted out this highly perverse alternate verse for "I Will Follow Him" (Warning, not for young eyes): "I love him, I love him, I love him, and when he comes I'll swallow, I'll swallow, I'll swallow..." I've probably ruined that song for you for life.
Anybody else got any favorites they want to post here?
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
My Harry Potter Predictions
Warning: This blog assumes you have read the first six books, and may contain spoilers.
I only have a couple of iron-clad predictions for the next Harry Potter book: It will make bazillions of dollars, and someone's going to spoil the ending for me before I manage to finish reading it. Beyond that, your guess is really as good as mine. However, here's a few Q&As that have been buzzing around my head:
Is Harry going to die?
It certainly looks like he is, which is exactly why I think he won't. So many people are worried about Harry's fate in the upcoming book. By now, anyone who's read the sixth book (The Half-Blood Prince) has pondered whether Harry is a horcrux. When Voldemort zapped baby Harry, he was transferring part of himself into the kid. That's also why Voldy hasn't been able to kill him, because doing so would kill Voldemort himself. Sure, Dumbledore told Harry that he was protected by hi Mother's love or some crap, but that was so Harry wouldn't find out he was a horcrux. In Book 6 it was revealed that Harry has to find and destroy all the horcruxes in order to be rid of Voldemort forever. So it really looks like the only way to kill Voldemort is to kill Harry Potter.
But the fact that people already see this, is what tells me it won't happen. When I read the first book, I was sure Snape was the one trying to steal the Sorceror's Stone. There was so much foreshadowing, that it had to be true. Yeah, it could have been a red herring, but I knew it was a children's book, so it wouldn't be that deep. And yet it was. I think Rowling is once again trying to trick us. There are so many people out there who already think they know how Book 7 is going to end, that it can't possibly end that way.
My guess is that sometime in the first half of Book 7, Harry is going to figure out that he's a horcrux. He's going to go through the rest of the book believing he's going to have to die in order to kill Voldemort. Then, at the end, there's going to be a twist that allows him to live.
One more thing: I've heard several people say, "Harry's death is the only way it can end." Then they'll go on about things like honor, duty, a boy becoming a man and realizing that he has to sacrifice himself to save everyone else, yada yada yada. I don't care how it's presented, killing Harry would be a piss-poor way to end the series. I have really enjoyed the series so far, and I have to believe that I'm going to enjoy Book 7 as well. I believe that overall, I'm going to have a great impression of the series, and I'll want to read all seven again someday. But if Harry dies, I probably won't like the series as much. Therefore, the boy will live. I know that's not exactly logical reasoning, but that's what I believe.
Is Dumbledore really dead?
When the fifth book (Order of the Phoenix) was on its way out, Rowling announced that someone was going to die in it. When I got to the book's climax, I knew someone was going to die soon. But when I read the death scene itself, I said, "Was that it?" That's the scene that made Rowling says made her cry when she wrote it? Sirius Black didn't die, he fell through a door. What a freaking cop-out. She could bring him back any time she feels like it. In a magical world, a true death scene requires things like, I don't know, a BODY. I mean, look at Peter Pettigrew. They assumed he'd been disintegrated when they found his finger.
But Dumbledore's case is a little different. They found a body, plus his picture was in the painting. But I'm still a little suspicious. For starters, the way it happened - Snape shoots Dumbledore, Dumbledore falls over the edge. Later they find his body on the ground. When I read it, my first thought was, "That's when they pulled the switch". What kind of switch, I don't know. Maybe Dumbledore zapped himself into the painting. But for some reason I have doubts regarding whethert it was actually Dumbledore's body they found on the ground.
Maybe Dumbledore will be back in the next book. Maybe he'll appear towards the end, just in time to tell Harry how to kill Voldy without dying himself. Maybe Dumbledore will even die again at the end of Book 7, sacrificing himself to save Harry. Or not. I don't know.
Book 7 is going to be so different from the others. The first six were so formulaic - they start with Harry at the Dursley's house, then he goes to school, it goes through the entire school year, then he goes back to the Dursleys. Dumbledore is also a strong part of the formula. He's like a Dungeonmaster, indirectly guiding Harry through his adventures, giving Harry hints and accomplishing through Harry what he can't do himself, then explaining it all at the end of the book. But with Harry not going back to Hogwarts, and no Dumbledore to guide him, and Harry having grown up so much by now, this book is going to break the formula all kinds of ways. Which makes it much harder to predict.
Is Snape really a bad guy?
The best I can say, is that there's still more to Snape than meets the eye. I know, "Duh." Rowling fooled us in the first book, it wouldn't be unlike her to do it again. Potter fans are quick to point out that in Book 6, when Snape is about to kill Dumbledore, the headmaster's pleas are sort of ambiguous. Is Dumbledore pleading for Snape not to kill him? Highly doubtful, that just doesn't sound like him. The way the scene plays out, it's almost as if Dumbledore and Snape had some sort of plan, and "killing" Dumbledore was part of the plan.
So who will die in Book 7?
Beats me. I really hope that Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Ginny stay alive. If one of them does die, my money's on Ron. On the other hand, Rowling did a lot of pushing characters together in the sixth book. The whole Harry/Ginny thing seemed a little rushed and/or forced. I can't help but wonder if Rowling needed one more emotional card to play in Book 7, one more potential tragedy for Harry to overcome before the final battle.
Will there ever be another Harry Potter Book?
Rowling has made it very clear that this is meant to be a seven-book series. However, this is also the first thing she's ever written. She doesn't know a damn thing about the curses from which writers suffer. Often you think a story is over and done with, and then your brain starts imagining further scenerios for your characters. Eventually you can't stop obsessing until you write them down. I have no doubt Rowling will take a nice long break from the Potterverse after Book 7 hits the shelves. Maybe she'll start spending more time with her family, or maybe she'll start writing something else. But sooner or later she's going to get the itch to revisit Harry's world. Maybe she'll give in to the temptation, maybe she won't.
I only have a couple of iron-clad predictions for the next Harry Potter book: It will make bazillions of dollars, and someone's going to spoil the ending for me before I manage to finish reading it. Beyond that, your guess is really as good as mine. However, here's a few Q&As that have been buzzing around my head:
Is Harry going to die?
It certainly looks like he is, which is exactly why I think he won't. So many people are worried about Harry's fate in the upcoming book. By now, anyone who's read the sixth book (The Half-Blood Prince) has pondered whether Harry is a horcrux. When Voldemort zapped baby Harry, he was transferring part of himself into the kid. That's also why Voldy hasn't been able to kill him, because doing so would kill Voldemort himself. Sure, Dumbledore told Harry that he was protected by hi Mother's love or some crap, but that was so Harry wouldn't find out he was a horcrux. In Book 6 it was revealed that Harry has to find and destroy all the horcruxes in order to be rid of Voldemort forever. So it really looks like the only way to kill Voldemort is to kill Harry Potter.
But the fact that people already see this, is what tells me it won't happen. When I read the first book, I was sure Snape was the one trying to steal the Sorceror's Stone. There was so much foreshadowing, that it had to be true. Yeah, it could have been a red herring, but I knew it was a children's book, so it wouldn't be that deep. And yet it was. I think Rowling is once again trying to trick us. There are so many people out there who already think they know how Book 7 is going to end, that it can't possibly end that way.
My guess is that sometime in the first half of Book 7, Harry is going to figure out that he's a horcrux. He's going to go through the rest of the book believing he's going to have to die in order to kill Voldemort. Then, at the end, there's going to be a twist that allows him to live.
One more thing: I've heard several people say, "Harry's death is the only way it can end." Then they'll go on about things like honor, duty, a boy becoming a man and realizing that he has to sacrifice himself to save everyone else, yada yada yada. I don't care how it's presented, killing Harry would be a piss-poor way to end the series. I have really enjoyed the series so far, and I have to believe that I'm going to enjoy Book 7 as well. I believe that overall, I'm going to have a great impression of the series, and I'll want to read all seven again someday. But if Harry dies, I probably won't like the series as much. Therefore, the boy will live. I know that's not exactly logical reasoning, but that's what I believe.
Is Dumbledore really dead?
When the fifth book (Order of the Phoenix) was on its way out, Rowling announced that someone was going to die in it. When I got to the book's climax, I knew someone was going to die soon. But when I read the death scene itself, I said, "Was that it?" That's the scene that made Rowling says made her cry when she wrote it? Sirius Black didn't die, he fell through a door. What a freaking cop-out. She could bring him back any time she feels like it. In a magical world, a true death scene requires things like, I don't know, a BODY. I mean, look at Peter Pettigrew. They assumed he'd been disintegrated when they found his finger.
But Dumbledore's case is a little different. They found a body, plus his picture was in the painting. But I'm still a little suspicious. For starters, the way it happened - Snape shoots Dumbledore, Dumbledore falls over the edge. Later they find his body on the ground. When I read it, my first thought was, "That's when they pulled the switch". What kind of switch, I don't know. Maybe Dumbledore zapped himself into the painting. But for some reason I have doubts regarding whethert it was actually Dumbledore's body they found on the ground.
Maybe Dumbledore will be back in the next book. Maybe he'll appear towards the end, just in time to tell Harry how to kill Voldy without dying himself. Maybe Dumbledore will even die again at the end of Book 7, sacrificing himself to save Harry. Or not. I don't know.
Book 7 is going to be so different from the others. The first six were so formulaic - they start with Harry at the Dursley's house, then he goes to school, it goes through the entire school year, then he goes back to the Dursleys. Dumbledore is also a strong part of the formula. He's like a Dungeonmaster, indirectly guiding Harry through his adventures, giving Harry hints and accomplishing through Harry what he can't do himself, then explaining it all at the end of the book. But with Harry not going back to Hogwarts, and no Dumbledore to guide him, and Harry having grown up so much by now, this book is going to break the formula all kinds of ways. Which makes it much harder to predict.
Is Snape really a bad guy?
The best I can say, is that there's still more to Snape than meets the eye. I know, "Duh." Rowling fooled us in the first book, it wouldn't be unlike her to do it again. Potter fans are quick to point out that in Book 6, when Snape is about to kill Dumbledore, the headmaster's pleas are sort of ambiguous. Is Dumbledore pleading for Snape not to kill him? Highly doubtful, that just doesn't sound like him. The way the scene plays out, it's almost as if Dumbledore and Snape had some sort of plan, and "killing" Dumbledore was part of the plan.
So who will die in Book 7?
Beats me. I really hope that Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Ginny stay alive. If one of them does die, my money's on Ron. On the other hand, Rowling did a lot of pushing characters together in the sixth book. The whole Harry/Ginny thing seemed a little rushed and/or forced. I can't help but wonder if Rowling needed one more emotional card to play in Book 7, one more potential tragedy for Harry to overcome before the final battle.
Will there ever be another Harry Potter Book?
Rowling has made it very clear that this is meant to be a seven-book series. However, this is also the first thing she's ever written. She doesn't know a damn thing about the curses from which writers suffer. Often you think a story is over and done with, and then your brain starts imagining further scenerios for your characters. Eventually you can't stop obsessing until you write them down. I have no doubt Rowling will take a nice long break from the Potterverse after Book 7 hits the shelves. Maybe she'll start spending more time with her family, or maybe she'll start writing something else. But sooner or later she's going to get the itch to revisit Harry's world. Maybe she'll give in to the temptation, maybe she won't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)