LOTR and Harry Potter

[Quazar]

OK,OK Don't kill me yet. Through a quirk of fate (LOTR was sold out)I saw Harry Potter and have not been able to see Rings yet. I have been a life long LOTR fan (first read them in the mid '70's) and can't wait to see the movie. However I can say I totally enjoyed Harry Potter (I have not read the books). The pacing was excellent, the actors were superb, and the CGI was fantastic. If you can get past comparing it with LOTR is well worth seeing. My wife who has read the books says it was very faithful to them.

[IronParrot]

Um, if you're just discussing the Harry Potter movie here, you might be interested in our existing discussion about it in the Entertainment Forum.

[Quazar]

Not really just about Harry, just kind of a general statement about the differences between books and movies. Also didn't see anything specific pertaining to Harry.

Q

[Twista]

Personally i think the films hamper the books in a biig way.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Quazar
OK,OK Don't kill me yet. Through a quirk of fate (LOTR was sold out)I saw Harry Potter and have not been able to see Rings yet. I have been a life long LOTR fan (first read them in the mid '70's) and can't wait to see the movie. However I can say I totally enjoyed Harry Potter (I have not read the books). The pacing was excellent, the actors were superb, and the CGI was fantastic. If you can get past comparing it with LOTR is well worth seeing. My wife who has read the books says it was very faithful to them.
I read the books and thought the movies were only true to the books a token amount. I mean, they followed the absolute basics of the plot, just enough to be allowed to call it "Harry Potter" but they missed a lot of the important aspects of the book. Hm. This mirrors my opinions on LotR a lot.

Either they were both lousy adaptations, or I should stop watching movies adapted from books I love. (The truth probably lies somewhere in between.) :D

[sirigorn]

I don't think the Harry Potter movies aren't that great. They are nothing compared to the book. Quazar, you really should read them. I think Dan Radcliffe, the guy who plays Harrry, can't act. Which makes the movies a lot worse. And in my opinion, the LotR movies are better than the books. But that might be because Tolkien uses big words and hard language and to many poems and songs. Don't get me wrong, I love the books. I just like the movies better.

[ethuiliel]

to many poems and songs That's a matter of opinion. I love them. (as you know, sirigorn)

Overall, I love both movies, but am disapointed about the differences from the books. However, I think Harry Potter is closer than LotR. It might just be that I'm more in love/obsessed with LotR, but I was less bothered by most of the changes in Harry Potter. Besides, J.K. Rowling did have a say in how the movie was made, J.R.R. Tolkien couldn't easily have personnaly told the screenwriters/directors what he felt should/should not be changed, considering he's been dead for more than 3 decades.

[sirigorn]

Oh yeah, I definatly think that the Harry Potter movies are closer to the books then the LotR movies.

[Lalaith_Elf]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Either they were both lousy adaptations, or I should stop watching movies adapted from books I love. (The truth probably lies somewhere in between.) :D

I have to agree with you here Nurv. In my view, both adaptations were a big dissapointment. But then, I think that they did their best. I can see how hard it would be to adapt to popular works of fiction.

The really terriable thing that jumps out at you when you watch the Harry Potter movies, is how the children can't act. I think that they are trying too hard and it doesn't make it natural. It's dissapointing especially as they're acting alongside great talent, ie. the late Richard Harris.

[sirigorn]

Exactly, the kids can't act. Well, some of them can. But I don't like Dan Radcliffe at all.
Richard Harris was a great Dumbledore. I hope the new guy (Michael Gambon or something?) is going to be as good.

[Lalaith_Elf]

He is a good actor, so I think he will be good in Azkaban. Though it may take a bit of getting used to, as we've seen the Harris-Dumbledore for the last few years. I just hope that either the child-actors improve or that when their contracts run out at either the 4th or 5th movie, they decied to give up their positions and let good actors take over.

[sirigorn]

I think they won't act in the 5th movie, so we'll have new actors in the 5th, 6th, and 7th. WhooHoo!!:D

[Lalaith_Elf]

This sort of thing generally happens with book adaptations though. When you try to make a movie out of a book there is a lot of complicated stuff to go though to make it work. And that often included cutting out alot of stuff - or adding characters where they shouldn't be (*cough*ARWEN!*cough*). I think people just have to bear in mind that there will be some changes, and that most of the time the film makers are trying their best (they better be!:mad: ;) )

You just have to keep an open mind.:)

... and the Harry Potter Kids - well they just need... um... 'training'.:rolleyes:

[Orli17]

i think the HP movies were a really bad adaption of teh books...i mean seriously they could have done much better! But the LOTR movies brings more life into Tolkien's complicated books that have so many characters. Plus ROTK leaves out the prince of dol amroth and all those characters...imagine the lenght of the movie with THOSE scenes in!! lol...

But one thing that struck me was the fact that both movies/stories have an overgorwn spider in it !! Well guess its Shelob vs. Aragog then!! And both are female spiders...very interesting.....

[Sono]

I think the LotR films are better than the Harry Potter films!
I agree with sirigorn. Daniel Radcliffe can't act! I think the films are more for kids. The LotR movies are more for older people :)
My favourtie is Legolas :D Orlando Bloom is so cute! ^^

I only read the LotR books in german. There are written in a very difficuld german, so I need a long time to read.
The HP books are very easy to read. :)
I read the books in english and german

so, I hope you understand my :rolleyes: ;)

bye
Sono

[sirigorn]

I understand you fine, Sono!!

And the English LotR is written very difficultly (is that even a word?) also. And once again, the HP books are not.

And Orlando is hot!!! I wanna see him in Troy!!!!!!!!

And even if Dan Radcliffe can't act, all the other main ones can. Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, they guy who plays Hagrid (I forget the name), Tom Felton, all the professorsand the Dumbledores. The have a very good cast. With the exception of the main character.

[Sono]

Originally posted by sirigorn
I understand you fine, Sono!!

Now I'm happy!! :D

I try to read LotR in english in the next time. ;)
Perhaps I understand something ^^

I heard, Daniel got this role, becaus his father work at the filmset. A friend told me this. Is that true? I don't know.[

[Orli17]

Hi Sono!

You know(to all) i was watching LOTR the other day and then HP...and was well realizing the DRASTIC differences in the interpretations of what an elf, goblin and all look like in both worlds.
Compare the following beings from teh movies:

1)Elves : Legolas vs. Dobby
2)Goblins: goblins from Moria vs. Gringotts Goblins
3)Trolls: Cave Troll vs. Mountain Troll....both were carrying a club tho..so that's kinda stereotypic too....and both were kinda dumb...another stereotypic thought.....

4)Wizards : Gandalf vs. Dumbledore (not much difference)
Dunno....just a few comparisons....thought it was cool tho how much the elves differ....i mean Dobby is definitely not in the same league as Legolas!!!:p


I heard, Daniel got this role, becaus his father work at the filmset. A friend told me this. Is that true? I don't know.[
Yes Daniel's dad Mark Radcliffe is one of the three executive producers of the HP films..just found that out last night while seeing the credits.....

[Fimbrethil]

I thought the goblins, with a few differences, looked alot alike. It was their manerisms that were different. But some of that was the same too. MAybe just the way people see things...

The elves though, no arguments there. Legolas was hot, Dobby was cute...in his own moronic scary way.

The wizards...acctually if you ask me they are alot different. I mean...Dumblodore, I can't see him peeling off on a horse, can you? And power wise? Gandalf would kick butt! Dumblodore's always described as being ancient but wise and able, Gandalf is too...only stronger...better it you will. You see where I'm going wiht that right?

[Mrs Maggot]

Well for starters I certainly can't see Dumbledore knocking people out with his staff. But I did think the 2 trolls looked remarkably similar, in terms of the movie interpretations at least– the HP one just looked a little bit less sinister.

[ethuiliel]

Especially at the end...it just kind of moans, then everyone steps back, and it falls. Almost identical.

[old scholar]

in many aspects i think rowling borrowed many things such as riingwraiths for the dementors and the old wizard character and voldemort´s downfall may be seen like saurons after the las alliance o f men and elves