Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings

arthurracoon · June 21st, 2003, 06:44 AM

Which do you like better?

Cardinals.Ken · June 21st, 2003, 07:34 AM

Harry Potter is babies! It's nothing more than a Scottish version of Goosebumps with the same characters in every book.

Lord of The Rings is a classic!

I like to hear this question 50 years from now. I guarantee you all you would hear is "What's Harry Potter?"

Chris_Sanders · June 21st, 2003, 08:49 PM

I don't think you can compare them.

Harry Potter is your basic good vrs evil story with some likable characters.

The Lord of the Rings has huge political undertones about war, industry, and respecting the environment.

While the genre may be similiar, the undertones of the story are dramatically different.

P.S. I voted for the LOTR even though I am a Harry Potter fan.

Stout · June 22nd, 2003, 10:08 AM

There is no comparison here, because we are on the MOVIE board, and Harry Potter wins hands-down. While HP began solidly and followed up with a wonderful second movie, LOTR-Fellowship is certainly better than HP-Sorceror's Stone, but LOTR-Two Towers sucks big-time. No character development, poor adherence to the storyline and complete changing of plot points that have no business being changed. Garbage, with only good effects to save anything. I mean, on it's own, it wasn't even that good, let alone trying to be one of Tolkien's classics.

So, thus far, the HP movies are better than the LOTR movies.

arthurracoon · June 23rd, 2003, 07:52 AM

I like both

Mike Olbinski · June 23rd, 2003, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stout
There is no comparison here, because we are on the MOVIE board, and Harry Potter wins hands-down. While HP began solidly and followed up with a wonderful second movie, LOTR-Fellowship is certainly better than HP-Sorceror's Stone, but LOTR-Two Towers sucks big-time. No character development, poor adherence to the storyline and complete changing of plot points that have no business being changed. Garbage, with only good effects to save anything. I mean, on it's own, it wasn't even that good, let alone trying to be one of Tolkien's classics.

So, thus far, the HP movies are better than the LOTR movies.

Wow, if that isn't the biggest load of crap I've ever heard...the Two Towers "sucked big time"????

Maybe you didn't like it, but it was critically hailed as one of the best movies of last year. Some thought it was better than the first one.

No character development??? What the??? Gollum's character wasn't developed? Aragorn's character wasn't delved into more?

The adherence to the original storyline was fine, just as good as the first movie...sure, plot points were changed, but they were changed in the first one too...and all the plot changed I saw seemed to work well.

The movie was far from garbage...

Mike

Bob Chebat · June 23rd, 2003, 08:15 AM

Harry Potter is setting records all over the world. I don't think that in 50 years, people will be saying "who's Harry Potter?"

I guess the new book is a good one. My wife bought it yesterday and is already half way through it. Over 400 pages in one day. It would take me two months to read that much.

Stout · June 23rd, 2003, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chandler Mike
Wow, if that isn't the biggest load of crap I've ever heard...the Two Towers "sucked big time"????

Maybe you didn't like it, but it was critically hailed as one of the best movies of last year. Some thought it was better than the first one.

No character development??? What the??? Gollum's character wasn't developed? Aragorn's character wasn't delved into more?

The adherence to the original storyline was fine, just as good as the first movie...sure, plot points were changed, but they were changed in the first one too...and all the plot changed I saw seemed to work well.

The movie was far from garbage...

Mike

Actually, many movie critics are nailing this movie just as badly as I am. Yes, Gollum was developed. It's kind of difficult not to since he is actually really being introduced as a character. Actually, I liked Gollum quite a bit. I had no issue with him.

No, Aragorn wasn't really developed at all, IMO, and in the opinion of hard-core fans of the books that I know (I like them, but I'm not uber-hard-core). He got into more romance with Arwen. Wasn't in the books, but hey, okay, I could see it (though not in the MIDDLE of a huge battle scene). Other than that, to me and to others I've spoken with, he basically just fought and frowned.

There was pathetic adherence to the storyline, and things were changed categorically worse than in the first movie. Yes, things were changed/left out of Fellowship (I miss Bombadil, but such is life), but things in Two Towers were changed TO THE DETRIMENT of the plot.

Faromir was supposed to be the mirror opposite of his brother Boromir. He was supposed to embody the strength of character Boromir did not. Instead we got a mirror image of Boromir that only changed his mind at the last second, completely ruining the contrasting aspects of humanity that Tolkien obviously wrote into the books. And they had to go to Osgiliath? I don't think so.

Elves? In Helm's Deep? Why? What possible furtherance of plot did that entail that we had to change it and insult the intelligence and integrity of readers? None.

Hell, even the throwing down of Wormtongue was anticlimactic. Granted, though not in the book, the fight with Sarumon (spelling?) through Theoden was cool, but the thunderous throwing down of Wormtongue was thoroughly glossed over. I was like, 'wow, it doesn't seem as if that was important at all'.

These are just a few or the points. I could go on and on, but I don't have time for it.

Btw, of course it was hailed as one of the best movies of the year. Why? It had lots of cool fighting, it was a neat sword-and-sorcery, it had loads of stars and it was a Tolkien thing. To me, that does not a classic movie necessarily make. It fell far, far short of expectations for me and a few friends.

But don't take this the wrong way. I'm not saying you can't like it. You're entitled to your own opinions on the matter. I'm just pointing out why it fails as the second installment in Tolkien's LOTR trilogy.

Chris_Sanders · June 23rd, 2003, 09:03 AM

I actually liked the addition of the Elves at Helm's Deep. It was very Hollywood with the calvary riding in to be sure, but it also showed that in some small way the races of middle earth were allying.

On Faromir though they really blew that...

A small complaint in the grand scheme of what I consider an excellent movie. I enjoyed the Two Towers far more than the first one.

The thing to understand is that movies are never the same as books. Things get changed. For instance:

Ron Weasley is a big hothead in the books. By the end of the second movie he has beat up Malfoy like three times. Also Ron's father kicks the hell out of Draco. In fact, the movies sell the entire Weasley family short.

Also, Potter is far more powerful in the books. In the movies they put too much emphasis on Hermione. She is all book knowledge, but can't begin to do half the stuff that Harry does naturally (Potter masters difficult spells in amazingly short time.)

Mind you, I love the movies. I read all the Potter books because I saw the first movie and loved it. But there are MANY differences from the books to the movies.

Ultimately when you watch a movie, you are seeing one person's vision for the story. They take artistic license with it. This is why the original novel will always be better than a movie.

Mike Olbinski · June 23rd, 2003, 09:09 AM

Agreed Chris.

Whatever they changed in Two Towers, I thought it still had a strong story, amazing acting, effects, etc...and I know I got chills when I saw Gandalf leading the charge down that hill...

Watched it two times, and the second time I appreciated it a whole lot more.

Mike

Chaplin · June 23rd, 2003, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stout

No, Aragorn wasn't really developed at all, IMO, and in the opinion of hard-core fans of the books that I know (I like them, but I'm not uber-hard-core). He got into more romance with Arwen. Wasn't in the books, but hey, okay, I could see it (though not in the MIDDLE of a huge battle scene). Other than that, to me and to others I've spoken with, he basically just fought and frowned.

Aragorn wasn't exactly this great multi-layered character in the books either. I don't like the fact that Eowyn is as obssessed with him in the movies, and hopefully her feelings will eventually turn up different.

Quote:

There was pathetic adherence to the storyline, and things were changed categorically worse than in the first movie. Yes, things were changed/left out of Fellowship (I miss Bombadil, but such is life), but things in Two Towers were changed TO THE DETRIMENT of the plot.

Such as? It's so convenient for people to complain incessantly about parts of the book that they wanted in the movie. Unfortunately, there are guidelines you have to follow in regards to RUNNING TIME. I missed Bombadil as well, but is he THAT crucial to the story? Not really. I would have liked to see a barrow wight, but other than that, the Bombadil parts were quite boring.

Quote:

Faromir was supposed to be the mirror opposite of his brother Boromir. He was supposed to embody the strength of character Boromir did not. Instead we got a mirror image of Boromir that only changed his mind at the last second, completely ruining the contrasting aspects of humanity that Tolkien obviously wrote into the books. And they had to go to Osgiliath? I don't think so.

This is simple. He plainly didn't get enough screen time. He didn't have a chance to be the strength of the Boromir ideology. This issue has got to be one of the main reasons why Return of the King is rumored to be many hours long.

Quote:

Elves? In Helm's Deep? Why? What possible furtherance of plot did that entail that we had to change it and insult the intelligence and integrity of readers? None.

This is another easy one. This gave the filmmakers 2 goals accomplished.

#1: It gives the filmmakers an opportunity to kill off a semi-important character. (SPOILER, SPOILER) As you know, nobody really dies in the books at all, and this gives the audience a bigger sense of dread seeing the elf lord die.

#2: Again, it's the nature of the moviemaking beast. In the books, the reinforcements were not elves, but the Huorns, which were more tree-like than Ent. Talk about major problems regarding special effects.

In effect, the filmmakers provided the reinforcements without having to spend another 2 years in the efx room and millions and millions of dollars.

Quote:

Hell, even the throwing down of Wormtongue was anticlimactic. Granted, though not in the book, the fight with Sarumon (spelling?) through Theoden was cool, but the thunderous throwing down of Wormtongue was thoroughly glossed over. I was like, 'wow, it doesn't seem as if that was important at all'.

I liken this to the fact that Wormtongue is a human. So far the only human that has been evil is Saruman. Wormtongue becomes a link between the good heroes and Saruman, thus his importance is magnified since the heroes really don't face any human enemy until the 3rd and final movie. It's easy to show a bunch of guys hacking up a bunch of faceless orcs, it's another to give a personality to an enemy and have a battle, however small.

Chris_Sanders · June 23rd, 2003, 09:26 AM

Eowyn...drool.

Whomever she is, she is a babe.

Stout · June 23rd, 2003, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chaplin
Damn, I wrote a great reply and lost it due to computer error. This will regrettably be shorter.

Such as? It's so convenient for people to complain incessantly about parts of the book that they wanted in the movie. Unfortunately, there are guidelines you have to follow in regards to RUNNING TIME. I missed Bombadil as well, but is he THAT crucial to the story? Not really. I would have liked to see a barrow wight, but other than that, the Bombadil parts were quite boring.

I didn't mean to imply Bombadil should have been left in, or that things were missing in the 2nd flick. I meant that, though I would have liked to see it, Bombadil was unneccesary, and I could deal with that. There were simply things that were unneccessarily changed in movie 2, and that's what I was commenting on.

This is simple. He plainly didn't get enough screen time. He didn't have a chance to be the strength of the Boromir ideology. This issue has got to be one of the main reasons why Return of the King is rumored to be many hours long.

He got TOO MUCH screen time. All that was needed, like in the book, was for him to talk with Frodo at the cave, ponder the problem so that Frodo sits on pins and needles for a moment or two, then affirm his honor and allow the ring to leave. Instead it took more time, not less, for them to do it wrong, not correct. Inexcusable, and it ruined a character utterly.

This is another easy one. This gave the filmmakers 2 goals accomplished.

#1: It gives the filmmakers an opportunity to kill off a semi-important character. (SPOILER, SPOILER) As you know, nobody really dies in the books at all, and this gives the audience a bigger sense of dread seeing the elf lord die.

Haldir was a minor character, in the books and movies. It was no big deal having him die. Certainly not worth having elves at Helm's Deep.

#2: Again, it's the nature of the moviemaking beast. In the books, the reinforcements were not elves, but the Huorns, which were more tree-like than Ent. Talk about major problems regarding special effects.

In effect, the filmmakers provided the reinforcements without having to spend another 2 years in the efx room and millions and millions of dollars.

The Huorns would have been unneccessary anyway. I believe it was Erkenbrand (or some such) that showed up with the rest of the human horsemen to save the day. So, again, why the elves at Helm's Deep? Why not just have the humans hold the walls until the rest of the humans show up? After all, this part was about the humans having to do it BY THEMSELVES, because they had no help from the old alliances. Again, ruined another good plot point.

I liken this to the fact that Wormtongue is a human. So far the only human that has been evil is Saruman. Wormtongue becomes a link between the good heroes and Saruman, thus his importance is magnified since the heroes really don't face any human enemy until the 3rd and final movie. It's easy to show a bunch of guys hacking up a bunch of faceless orcs, it's another to give a personality to an enemy and have a battle, however small.

This I can see. I don't agree with how they did it, but I can see your point. Still, at least a raised voice would have been in order, at the least.

Stout · June 23rd, 2003, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris_Sanders
I actually liked the addition of the Elves at Helm's Deep. It was very Hollywood with the calvary riding in to be sure, but it also showed that in some small way the races of middle earth were allying.

On Faromir though they really blew that...

A small complaint in the grand scheme of what I consider an excellent movie. I enjoyed the Two Towers far more than the first one.

The thing to understand is that movies are never the same as books. Things get changed. For instance:

Ron Weasley is a big hothead in the books. By the end of the second movie he has beat up Malfoy like three times. Also Ron's father kicks the hell out of Draco. In fact, the movies sell the entire Weasley family short.

Also, Potter is far more powerful in the books. In the movies they put too much emphasis on Hermione. She is all book knowledge, but can't begin to do half the stuff that Harry does naturally (Potter masters difficult spells in amazingly short time.)

Mind you, I love the movies. I read all the Potter books because I saw the first movie and loved it. But there are MANY differences from the books to the movies.

Ultimately when you watch a movie, you are seeing one person's vision for the story. They take artistic license with it. This is why the original novel will always be better than a movie.

The problem is, the races were NOT allying. That's the problem. They came together for the Fellowship, but that was it. The other races WOULD NOT come to the Humans' aid, and that was the whole damn point. Sending elves ruined that point.

I agree on the Potter films. The Weasley's have fallen a bit by the wayside and Hermione is being overemphasized. Still, it says a lot when Rowling is not perceived as a sellout with the movies (as indeed she is not), and she likes the way they're going.

Hell, if Tolkien himself (not his offspring, who likely see more $$$) was sitting here and said, 'It's all good', and I believed him (Unlike Clancy with Sum of All Fears, where he CLEARLY sold out), then I'd take everything back. Problem is, I doubt very seriously he'd have liked the second movie either.

Chaplin · June 23rd, 2003, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stout
The problem is, the races were NOT allying. That's the problem. They came together for the Fellowship, but that was it. The other races WOULD NOT come to the Humans' aid, and that was the whole damn point. Sending elves ruined that point.

That's simply not correct. It is the elves that allied with the humans in the first place. It was the elves that even devised and constructed the fellowship! (Elrond)

If you've read the books, and you obviously have, the turning point in the book during Helm's Deep was the Huorn reinforcements, not the horsemen. The Huorn's were enough of a threat to turn the evil army's attention away from the humans.