|
|
Post by Ari on Oct 24, 2002 16:12:50 GMT -5
Why must people comapre the LOTR trilogy and Hp? It's like a new version of backstreet Boys vs NSYNC or Christina vs Britney. They're each awesome on their own levels, with pros and cons. For example, LOTR has a more origional storyline and excitement, yet got boring at parts. HP has a more cliche' storyline, but with more humour loveable characters. In fact, I think I like the FOTR movie better the PS/SS, but the HP series better then the LOTR trilogy.  |
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Oct 24, 2002 18:19:41 GMT -5
Oh I don't know, I can't help it  But I heard the trilogy wasn't the best. The movie I know people have said it's WAY better than the books. I'll give it a chance  |
|
|
|
Post by MsPoet on Oct 24, 2002 18:32:20 GMT -5
LOL....all this talk of HP and LOTR...... First, I first read the LOTR trilogy in college. I couldn't wait for my 2-hr break to come when I could sit on the bench and just READ. I took them everywhere with me, read every moment I could. I sometimes read until my eyes stung and were blurry. For whatever reason, I often said thruout my college career that reading LOTR was one of the greatest experiences of my life. Seeing the movie actually happen, and the actors looking EXACTLY as I'd imagined them (ok maybe not Sam---I didn't picture him um, so 'big' around the middle)....was magic for me. I felt dizzy waiting in line last year on Opening Night. On HPSS's Opening Night, I was giggly and kept shaking my friends as I exclaimed, "THIS IS IT!!!" lol....the electricity throughout the entire line was such that an employee of Warner Bros. right in front of me said to me that she hadn't seen anything like this since 'Star Wars' (she's maybe in her mid-30's) and she should've brought her video camera so she could take the video with her to work and show everyone. I guess my point is..., all their books and movies, BOTH LOTR and HP... mean the world to me...you have no idea. As for different actors being cast.....on the one hand, it would be wonderful if the same kids act in GOF if it's begun right after POA. It would be absolutely wonderful to see them play their own ages and age along with their characters. However, a lot depends on if GOF is begun *right* after POA, and how long it'll take to film. Also, Columbus has a point to them "being kids"....I think these kids have a lot of potential in *whatever* they choose to do in the future and it might be wise for them to stop after 3 so they are not "only" thought of these characters. They could even stop acting and concentrate only on school, then resume the entertainment business once they're out of school. If they DO stop after POA, I have a theory on the next casting. I think they might cast adult actors (ie people 18 or over) as the main leads. This would solve 2 "problems": 1) children in England are allowed only 4 hours of actual work-time on set per day and 2) the situation-topic of the kids' "growth" is no longer an issue. Even if GOF were to be an extra-long shoot, you could almost guarantee that the actors would look the same from one shot/scene to the next. I don't think it would be any problem at all to find 18-yr-olds who look 14 since Moaning Myrtle is played by someone in her mid-30's...and let's face it, there are teenagers who are look 12, and then there are teenagers who look 25. lol Donna |
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Oct 24, 2002 18:52:50 GMT -5
Wow, now I want to go off and read the trilogy. I never got to see FOTR soo yeah. I want to read the book before I check it out though.. maybe I'll decide they both rock, but whatever. they both seem like awesome movies/books |
|
|
|
Post by MsPoet on Oct 26, 2002 15:46:04 GMT -5
I've always found that the *books* are "better" than the movies---except with "Little Women" (I *tried* to read that several times).
Donna
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelamyte on Oct 26, 2002 16:07:52 GMT -5
Little Women the book is soooo much more better than the movie.... and with LOTR .... i dunno if it's becuz of my ADD...but they're both very very boring...regardless of medium... and i thought the guy who played gandalf was more dumbledore than richard harris....  no offense...i'm not evil... |
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Oct 26, 2002 20:17:19 GMT -5
I kind of believe that 'most' of the time.. that books are better than movies. I thought SS [ PS ] was slightly better, okay well a lot better than the movie, but because the movie left out a lot =/ I was so glad they were doing it though because of how neat everything looks and I like to see if I imagined them that way and all that.. but whatever.
As for the dude playing Gandalf, I heard some people saying the other day that he'd make a perfect Dumbledore.. so they should consider that when recasting. I don't really know sooo.. yeah.
|
|
|
|
Post by lizifer on Oct 27, 2002 6:15:41 GMT -5
rachel, should definately read lotr and see fotr, both are amazing!
i think generally books are better than movies.
u deffinately can't compare lotr and hp coz they're both so different.
about ian mckellen (gandalf) as dumbledore, i can't really see any1 else other than richard harris as dumbledore!! but ian mckellen's a great actor so i'm sure if any1 could pull it off it'd be him!
liz xxx
|
|
|
|
Post by MsPoet on Oct 27, 2002 16:09:03 GMT -5
Yes....... I read a few weeks ago or so somewhere: the writer's opinion was that Dumbledore was, he felt, "supposed" to be more like Gandalf than the way Richard Harris was portraying the character. The funny thing is, I never thought there was anything wrong with Richard Harris's portrayal until I read this, and then, I was thinking, "Hmmm...." So....when I see COS I'll be thinking about it. If I remember correctly, there were a number of "older" actors being looked at for the part of Gandalf, and Richard Harris was among them. Years ago, Sean Connery was the most-spoken about for the role, but even Sean Connery has said that he didn't understand (the complexity) of all the hobbits and elves and wizards etc. (he hadn't read the books). Everyday lately, namely this past week, when I peruse the major HP websites, there seems to be more and more updates on whether or not the 3 main kids will be back after POA. Only Rupert Grint (Ron) actually spoke out at the London press conference and said he'd like to do more. Dan is not as forthcoming; he constantly says he doesn't know what will happen, which is very wise because heck, they haven't even *begun* POA yet. As I was posting about before, there are both advantages and disadvantages to the kids' doing all the movies. And something just occurred to me....who even knows for sure if ALL seven books will be made into movies??? Everyone everywhere is talking as if they will, but who knows?  Donna |
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Oct 27, 2002 18:42:46 GMT -5
I think he portrayed him very fine, but yeah if you actually do read that and think, there's something about how he portrayed him you just want to change.
I know all of them signed on to be in PoA, it's just after that. I just hope they get it up to GoF with all of them because it's going to take awhile, for me at least, to get used to knew actors if they don't go on with the future movies.
Ya everyone does act like they're doing the whole series. I don't know, I just know if they do the whole thing it's going to take a very long time. But then I heard people doubting it because of the actors and actresses. I really don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelamyte on Oct 28, 2002 22:32:48 GMT -5
i know all the books are going to be made...but what's the point of doing the first 3 movies...and then stopping there? not only would the fans be disappointed...(ME!!) But...it really doesn't look good for WB and for JKR...and i mean, the fan base is already doing soo well (after POA) why not make more money??  come on now... but then again, they could stop after book 4 and say that the fans got bored...but i know i would never get bored of HP...and CC for that matter....ROFLOL ;D  |
|
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by on Oct 29, 2002 5:35:52 GMT -5
I think that first Potter flick was worse than the book because they cut out the best lines and were all focused on style rather than substance (read: less classes more running away from CGI menace). I think that kids vs Snape scenes are the most entertaining in any books but they aren`t in the movie. If COS is less |Lockhartfest and more Slytherin vs Mudbloods than COS flick is going to be better than the book.FOTR flick is better than the book because they cut out most of boring and pointless parts, beefed up romance and ditched Hobbit angle in favor of making it more Aragorn story. I was alays more intersted in Aragorn/Arwen thing than in Hobbit`s ordeal when I read the books and the movie is just how I would have written them. I think that no matter what Potter movies do they`ll be always compared to LOTR so I agree about Britney/Chrsitian comparission. However, there`s so much space for both to be successful, only fanboys wish bad to rival franchise. And truth to be told, sword-clad harry does look like mini-Aragorn.Nothing wrong with that. |
|
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by on Oct 29, 2002 5:37:49 GMT -5
I meant britney/Christina (as in Aguilera).
|
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Oct 29, 2002 15:21:19 GMT -5
I don't know, the WB has to deal with all the movie business, not me. I think now that they're doing all of the movies, but that might change. You never know. I know there's no point of it but as long as all of the books are out I don't care. Oh I won't get bored either, believe me |
|
|
|
Post by Angelamyte on Oct 29, 2002 21:29:23 GMT -5
anyway.... all i know is that i can sit through CoS...but probably not the TT cuz it's just toooo boring for me...but then again, the TT are probably going to get more publicity becuz it's geared toward older ppl... and this topic is really getting tooooo old! lol |
|
But I heard the trilogy wasn't the best. The movie I know people have said it's WAY better than the books. I'll give it a chance 
Christian, do you like our future?
