Why didn't this achieve the same popularity as Harry Potter?
Because Emily Browning wasn't legal yet.
Who's hyped for the new show?
>>67792616
Honestly i think the netflix show is what will throw it into harry potter territory.
Never read the books. Were they any good?
because it was bad
The books are formulaic as fuck.
The kids are sent to a relative.
The bad guy infiltrates their new home, kills the relative
All adults are retarded and flat out refuse to listen to the kids, until the bad guy has murdered their legal guardian
The kids barely escape the bad guy and his quest to marry the underaged daughter and given to another relative.
So Jim Carrey was a pedo in this movie right?
The books weren't that good, just quirky and morbid, and oddly written. I had 0 emotional investment in the characters and only read to see if the mysteries would be solved and they never were.
>>67796326
And Harry Potter was? Honestly both of the series are fucking garbage. I don't want to sound like a sexist asshole but women are absolutely garbage at writing literature. Men just have a thing for it. I could name 10 male authors off the top of my head that have contributed to literature and are far better writers than any acclaimed female authors.
>>67796598
Harry Potter was fun escapist fiction, had likable characters, immersive worldbuilding. SUE was purposefully obscure in its story and that obviously stopped it from being more popular than a more conventional story. Not that unconventional equals good or bad
>I don't mean to sound like a sexist asshole
you didn't have to try hard
>>67796693
It probably is a biological thing, men are better at some things than women are and vice versa. Women just can't hold a candle to some of the best authors PS they're males. And if you want to talk immersive world building look at Tolkien that's immersive.
