About 2 recent films

Remove all ads!

hi everyone
here's a question u may have already discussed for many times.....hey i'm new here.....please, may i hear your opinion

which film is better
???? harry potter
???? the lord of the rings

thanks

 

Lord of the Rings, by a head and shoulders. Though, by no means does that mean that Harry Potter was bad, just overshadowed by the more complex, longer waited for, grander scaled LOTR.

 

Harry Potter is really more of a chiildrens story, and due to the hype, I've always vowed never to read the books.

That rules out the film for me too. However, DOOOOO go to see the Lord of the Rings. Excellent stuff.

 

If your under 11 Harry Potter would be the best for you, since it is easier to follow then Lord of the Rings. if you are over 11 and can watch a three hour movie then Lord of the Rings would be good for you. I have seen both and both are great. The only problem is that the plot of Harry Potter is not complex at all. Ohh and if you watch Harry Potter always watch the paintings they do neat things

 

Have you seen either of the movies? Gosh man. The answer is so obvious, I'm not even going to waste a thought on it.

 

I cant say any thing about Harry,(I admit that I read that books and was hooked for awile) but I did go see LOTR and it was good now that I really think about it. I'm 15 with a mind spand of an 8 year old. So I think that I would been better of with Harry. But really they both have their goods and bads and I think it all deppens on you.

 

I am a 24 year old with a mind span of an 8 yeared old. I really jumped in my seat when the Nizgul came riding into the screen in the night. In the dark. When noone can hear you.

I go for Lotr. It is an awesome movie. I just can't relate to a magician wearing glasses. *g*

 

i havent seen both yet
for harry potter i was not able buy the ticket.....then i decided to give up and wait for those vcds
and lotr will be out on 31-1-2002 (i live in hong kong)
everyone around is talking about harry potter or holding the books (not reading)
not many people heard lotr.... a few people talk about it......i'm a bit depressed

 

In all honesty, I enjoyed Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone MORE than I did LOTR. I have read all four Harry Potter books and The Hobbit and the first half of Fellowship of the Ring. I read the Hobbit when I was young, but have not had the chance to read the LOTR trilogy.

Don't get me wrong, I have no feelings of ill will towards LOTR, books or movie. I just enjoyed the Harry Potter movie more. Although it wasn't much shorter than LOTR, Harry Potter felt like it flowed to me while LOTR did not. I shifted so many times in my seat waiting for that movie to just end. For the most part I knew what was going on since I had read the Hobbit, so I don't feel like my dissapointment from the movie comes from me not knowing the story. And there were parts of LOTR I really enjoyed (primarily the first half and the very end), HOWEVER, there were just as many parts I didn't enjoy. Either they should have been explained more or just left out, especially the part with the forest and the elves and Galadriel spazzing out near Frodo. That really made no sense whatsoever. Either it should have been done better or scrapped.

That's the problem with trying to fit such a complex story in a movie. At least so far, Harry Potter seems to be doing a better job of taking the story to the big screen. I felt like it flowed great as it took you through the school year, hitting the highlights with care and consideration and not sacrificing story and character development for a plethora of settings and CG warriors on battlefields, no matter how beautiful they may be. Really now, was that whole bit where the Fellowship travels through those snow mountains neccesary? (Sorry about not rembering the exact name of the location.) Ok like we are to believe that the hobbits just walk with nothing more than a thin cloth around their feet in the snow, and that the characters get buried in an avalanche, but don't seem to suffer a bit of frostbite. And then the next minute they are in a swamp. Oh look at the pretty CG octupus monster. Ok moving along now into the mines. Oh look another CG monster. Ok running through the mines, oh look a CG demon! Followed by a quick fleeting from the mines only to show the Fellowship wind up in a forest with a bunch of psycho elves. OK maybe I am being a bit harsh here but somehow I envisioned this LOTR bit to be above this level of showing off CG monsters. I mean 3 back to back like that seemed a bit too obvious that the film was focusing more on showing off CG graphics than relaying the story, at least that is the impression it gives to someone who hasn't read the book. It's something the director should have thought more closely about.
I'm sure the book has plenty of character development. Where was that in the movie? Not much. I felt like I hardly knew the Fellowship. I could feel the bond with Frodo and Sam and the whole bit with the ring. That was established well in the first half. But the second half, which was concerned with the Fellowship and their quest, seemed empty and weak. I felt no bonds with the group. Here I was watching these guys getting burried in avalanches, getting chased by CG monsters in a bunch of dark mines, and winding up with some freak elves, and I felt no connection to them and little to their quest. Who is this Legolas guy? Who is this Gimli fellow? I want to know more about Aragorn. At least they saved the whole snow scene from complete worthlessness by showing Boromir being overcome by the ring and wanting to not give it to Frodo when it fell in the snow. That's what I wished to see more of, character development. If I don't feel connected to the characters, then I'm not going to be pleased watching them run around mines and forests. On the other hand, I felt connected with Harry, Ron, and Hermione in their adventures at Hogwarts. Especially Harry, because the film emphasized who he was and what he situation was more effectively than the Fellowship's role in LOTR. All this is IMHO of course .
My advice for future adaptions of a series of books: plan to split the books into a series of movies that can adequately do justice to the story without confusing the audience or making their butts hurt from sitting in the theatres too long! I know it's too late but perhaps they should have split the LOTR books into two halves. Frodo getting the ring and leaving the Shire with his hobbit friends, Sam, Merry, and Pippin, and being chased by the Nazgul/ringwraiths or whatever they are called, leading up to Rivendale could be the first movie. From what I understand, parts of the book were left out here and this would be a good chance to add them. The film would end on the formation of the Fellowship, building excitement and bringing back the audience for more in a sequel as they anticipate the Fellowship's quest. That's really no more than what it is asking of audiences to return for The Two Towers is it? Of course it wasn't done this way and that's too bad. Instead they just have to cram it all in 3 hours and hope for the best.

This brings me to the conclusion that book adaptations are sketchy. Bring on Star Wars! It is bounded by no prior story, and most certainly flows. (It may boast CG graphics as well, but they fit into the story and I honestly feel they are more about advancing the story than they are for show. Even a certain controversial CG character has his place in a movie that relflects where the main character, Anakin Skywalker, is in this point of his life, setting a child-like tone for Phantom Menace but also showing mimicking the innoncence of the Republic before its corruption and demise and transformation into the Empire.) 2 Hours and 15 minutes or so of pure genius! A lot of thought goes into these movies, make no mistake about that. May 16th baby! Episode II! May the Force Be With You!

/me wails that last line out as I get dragged away.

Yikes this confession has turned into a rant. I still believe it whole-heartedly though.

 

Harry Potter is just crap literature written for little kids. Kinda like the "Goosebumps" series of books; collect them all .

 

I've never read the Harry Potter books and didn't see the movie, but from my observations it's a great series to get children in volved in reading.I'm still waiting to see it and I've seen LoTR. I like these movies in general anyway.

 

Thorin,i am 11, so what movie should i watch?

 

Read the first one, seen the film, both were crap, C'est La Vie.

 

Seen them both, liked them both. Only read LotR though, and no HP. I might eventually get to that, but it's not very high on my list of priorities.

 

I gotta say I havn't seen Harry Potter but I heard it is very good from my friend's. Now I have seen LotR and I loved it I would put it in my favirote movie list (saw it twice) along with Gladiater, Fight Club, and probably my favirote out of all Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail. The only part that is holding me back from seeing Hary Potter is the fact that I didn't enjoy the one I read (the second one) I probably should go see it though, because I do respect for the books and I might try reading the first one like I should've started off with. So if I were you I'd go see both.