Hmm. Could you please explain to me with your infinite comprehension skills where I said I know WITHOUT a doubt that LOTR will be the better movie? Way to try and twist what I said, ya stinkin genius. No I have not read them. I have other things to read, other things to do right now than read something which holds little interest for me at this time. Maybe the books are cool, I've read other fantasy novels that could be considered kiddie but imo were entertaining. Chronicles of Narnia and Thief of Always to name a few. But even if the HP books are entertaining, I don't see how they could compare to the LOTR books. The HP movie looks like a standard kid movie with awesome effects. If I go to see it, I'll have my regular gag reflex prepared(as I do for all kiddie/family movies) and I'll be prepared to walk out(or eject the tape), should it suck too bad. It wouldn't be the first overhyped kids movie that I've seen, but it's rare when I enjoy them. If the LOTR adaptation is decent, which it looks like it will be from the previews, then yeah, it should be a better movie. Whether an audience that loved such movies as Titanic will go to see it, I know not.
I've got an idea...how about those who have read the book or haven't read the book, go see the movie anyways. I haven't read any of the books and the fact that this thing is being advertised way too much pisses me off. Hell, my friend who is a 20 year chick had a freaking Harry Potter party. I mean she had HP decorations, HP food, HP legos...it was kinda silly that a grown girl would go this crazy over it. I was actually making fun of it all in way, but once I saw the movie, I was really quite impressed. If you just ignore all the hype and get over your pride and stubborness and just go see the movie and determine whether or not it is good for yourself. I haven't read LOTR either but I will go see that one and make a judgement for myself. We all have our own tastes and some will like one more than the other, but u shouldn't make a judgement w/o seeing it. just my .2 cents worth
Yeah, so... Tomb Raider was an awful movie. I loved it though. LOTR will be a classic, and a brilliant epic trilogy. Potter is trash.
Fwiw, my wife is a highly educated 42 year old whose second favorite leisure time passion is reading and she loved the Harry Potter books.
I found <i>The Lord of the Rings</i> to be quite boring, honestly. That's probably sort of odd, because I love most fantasy stories. I actually enjoyed <i>The Hobbit</i> and the first half of <i>The Fellowship of the Ring</i>, but about midway through that book I started to lose interest. I did finish it, though, and managed to plod halfway through <i>The Two Towers</i> before finally nodding off and putting it down for good. I certainly do not consider it to be "the greatest tale in the history of the english language" as Nomar stated. I don't even think it is the greatest <b>fantasy</b> tale in the English language. <i>Ivanhoe</i>, <i>Beowulf</i> and even Robert E. Howard's <i>Conan</i> stories are better reads, in my opinion. I guess my point is that I think the LOTR trilogy is overrated and that the movie won't be as big of a success as most people seem to think it will be. The Harry Potter movie will be a bigger hit because the Harry Potter books are mainstream, while the LOTR trilogy, while popular to this day, never quite achieved this status. Now don't get me wrong, there <b>is</b> a large number of LOTR fans, but they are more like a very large, very vocal group of cult followers. Harry Potter simply appeals to a larger audience. I think LOTR is a lot like Star Trek, while Harry Potter is similar to Star Wars. Sure, there are a ton of people out there who love the Star Trek series just as there are a ton of people who love the LOTR trilogy. Star Trek movies always do well at the box office because they have a large group of loyal followers, but do they ever come close to outgrossing a Star Wars film? Not likely. Star Wars, like Harry Potter, appeals to a broader scope. Kids and adults alike from a wide variety of backgrounds enjoy Harry Potter. LOTR appeals to a more specific type of reader. The LOTR film will do well, but it won't outgross the Harry Potter movie unless the filmmakers pour a substantially larger amount of advertising money into promoting it. Even then it would be doubtful.
Since you seem to be such a gung-ho fan of LOTR, am I correct in assuming that you also read <i>The Hobbit</i>*? Did you enjoy it? You must have if you liked LOTR. Did you know that it was written and published as a children's book with a child audience in mind? Irony rules. * - <i>The Hobbit</i> is the prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Fade, You beat me to it. RM95, Why do you always seem to have a chip on your shoulder lately? As for me, I will refrain from seeing it. I might see it on video, but who knows. I do not usually rely on reviews, but from what I have read of the movie, it does not interest me. That, combined with the fact that I have not read the books, will keep me away. In general, this movie had no chance of not being an opening weekend smash. The relentless hype machine combined with the already established fan base made it a win-win venture up to ths point. The real test (as with The Lost World, POTA, etc) comes with sales in the subsequent weeks (after word of mouth spreads, hype dies a little, etc.). I highly doubt LOTR will be as large in its opening.
Could somebody please explain to me what "Lord of the Rings" is? I know what Harry Potter is and all it's about but I have never heard of LOTR???
Harry Potter sucked. I was so pissed that somene convinced me to see that crap. The special effects were nice, but way too long............
Not necesarily. I enjoyed the LOTR, but did not like The Hobbit. It seemed as if the two tales were written by two different people. I liked LOTR, I will probably see the movie. I've never read Harry Potter, and having no opinion on it, and am undecided if I shall go see it. But there is no way LOTR beats Harry Potter at the box office, for reasons already stated above.
I've never read any of the Harry Potter books, but I've been thinking about going to see it, considering every adult I know (including my dad, who has read all of the books) has loved them. Another thing thats made me want to see this movie, is, unlike other blockbusters--its recieved good reviews. Roger Ebert even gave it four stars...
Though I've yet to find a thread where this happened before now, I have to agree with RM95 here. First off, LOTR probably won't come close to the money of Harry Potter. Potter has attracted a very wide audience and age group and is much more a household name. I don't necessarily agree that's the way it should be, but hey that's life. Second, I've never read a Potter book. I'm going through LOTR right now. This is my second try at LOTR. I usually have two or three books lying around the house that I can read at any given time. THe last time I started LOTR, it caught my interest at first then just kind of tapered off as I found something else more entertaining. I still can see why it's a classic, and I love fantasy stuff, but I've found newer works like Wheel of Time and Sword of Truth to be better at grabbing and holding your attention. When Potter first came out, I didn't think I was ever going to read it because I was under the impression that it was aimed at a younger age. Nothing wrong with that, but in books that usually means a very different writing style and not something that relates to older groups. Since then I've heard plenty of people - folks that read quite avidly - state how it appeals to a large age group. I tend to believe that. I picked up a copy the other day, read the first few pages, and could see what they mean. I will probably read the first one not too long from now. So the point here is, yeah if you haven't read it I can see why you trash it because you've been taught that it's a 'kiddie' book. But apparently it isn't written that way. So unless you've actually tried to read it, it's hard to put a final judgement on it. I know I won't until that happens. Also - as a side note - I never have understood why some people lack the ability to enjoy something if they think it's out of their age group. I feel sorry for those of you who can't watch something because it's supposed to be 'kiddie' - you've missed out on some entertaining (Toy Story1/2, Bugs Life, Shrek, etc..) stuff.
rimbaud, I don't know what you're talking about. The funny thing is that I actually didn't think the movie was that good. While it was amazing to see the characters and the scenery come to life, I didn't feel it was a very good adaptation of the book. Snape wasn't portrayed as evil as he was in the book, and he was the one character I was really excited about because Alan Rickman is great. I just have the feeling that if you didn't read the books, you would've been lost at some points, but maybe not. This was one of those movies, for me, that had no chance of living up to the expectations I was thrusting upon it. Oh well, at least I now know how to pronounce Hermione. Anyway, my big beef is when people say that they hate something or that it's stupid without ever trying it.
Lord of the Rings is a series of books written by J.R.R. Tolkien early in this century and released in the 1950's. Many believe that they are the beginning of modern fantasy writing and have had a large impact on the fantasy fiction genre since then. Many people have cited the series as one of the greatest series of books ever written, and its a shame that Tolkien did not extend the story a little more. George Lucas has said in the past that his Star Wars movies use the same kind of equation as the Lord of the Rings series and they were a great inspiration to him. They are so wildly popular because of their simplicity. Good vs. Evil. A rag-tag group of good guys going up against almost impossible odds to defeat a seeminly unbeatable foe (sound familiar). This series follows the book called The Hobbit, and uses that book as a base for its story. Tolkien has been called a genius for these books not only because of the writing, but for the make up of an entire fictional universe, complete with the economice, politics, and bickering of the people who dwell in it. He also created a language with and alphabet for the Elves in the story. The language uses actual phonics and could be considered a "real" language if one were to assume that someone could speak it. The shortfall of the books however is that they do not appeal to everyone. Most people who even remotely enjoy fantasy will enjoy these books, however if you don't like fantasy, you won't like these books. But like everything, not everyone likes it, you can't please everyone, so you just have to read it and see for yourself. The Lord of the Rings is a Trilogy of Volumes, made up of six books. The books are put into the Volumes and sold as three books usually. They are called Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King. There is a fantastic paperback box set of the series that has the Hobbit in it as well, I suggest that to anyone looking into the series. Its put out by Houghton-Mifflen. Now then, I've read both Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter is fantastic, but I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings more. Harry Potter enjoyes a larger core fan base and the movie will probably do a little better than the Lord of the Rings movie, however, some people think the Lord of the Rings movies will be the next Star Wars. Only time will tell, but I do think that the Lord of the Rings movies will have a little more staying power over the years as movies to watch and Harry Potter will fade a little faster. I predict they both easily top 250 million in the box office, with Harry Potter making 40-50 million more because of the larger children's fan base. F.Y.I: The Lord of the Rings Movie is only The Fellowship of the Ring. It is a trilogy of movies, each movie being put out for the next 3 Christmas Holidays. The interesting thing about this trilogy is that they are not stopping production between movies and are shooting them all together. Anyways, I've rambled on... Later
God, I hate these HP-LOTR fights... Okay, I'm usually respectful of everyone's opinion here, but damnit, those of you who have read one series and not the other really shouldn't diss the one you haven't read. Maybe I'm the only person who loves both series AND has seen Harry Potter. On Harry Potter, the books... First off, I love the Harry Potter series. I bought the first book out of plain curiosity. Then, I bought the second book to see where the series would go. Next, I bought the third book because I wanted the story to go on, and finally, I bought the fourth and most recent book out of rabid obsession. The books are well written and really draw you in. Every person and event portrayed throughout the series is explained or comes back in some form or fashion in the later books. For instance, Ron's rat is mentioned in the first book, but plays a big part in the third book. The ending of the first book comes back into play in the fourth book. The continuity is great and really helps tie the books together. That was a big draw for me. And those of you who think the books are kiddie fare have obviously not read any of them. The third and fourth books are pretty dark. I'm not sure I'd let my kids read them (if I had any). People die. Harry has raging thoughts of murder. Evil gets stronger and stronger. Harry doesn't always win. You think that's kiddie? On Harry Potter, the movie... The movie was decently good, but it was just a literal translation of the books. There was no creativity or energy driving it (not even in John Williams' excellent but repetitive score). The CGI was okay at best, although some of it approached laughable (a.k.a. Mummy Returns quality). The direction was also average at best. I blame this on the mediocrity that is Chris Columbus. He had no interesting scene transistions, camera angles, or style in any scene (okay, minus the Quidditch game). He is soooo "blah" as a director. He came very close to screwing this one up, had it not been for the acting. I'm actually rather pissed he's directing Chamber of Secrets (2nd movie). Speaking of which, the acting, on the whole, was pretty good, and at times, saved the movie from flat and boring scenes. Granted, the acting of the kids in the film weren't exactly Haley Joel Osmont quality, but hey, that's a rather minor quibble. Let's just say they far exceeded Jake "Wooden Boy" Lloyd, of Star Wars fame. The adults were much better in their roles. Alan Rickman (Snape) rules, and Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) was damn good. Richard Harris made a pretty good Dumbledore, and Maggie Smith (McGonagall) was decent. I didn't like Ian Hart (Quirrell), though. Overall, I would recommend the movie. Why? Well, I loved the book (and highly recommend it), and the movie is taken directly from it (minus some left out details that slightly irked me). Therefore, I have to recommend the movie. Plus, the Quidditch scene is worth the admission by itself. Just keep in mind that certain characters (like John Cleese's Nearly Headless Nick and the Weasley twins) will get far greater screen time in the sequels. Also, certain events (like the ending) will be better explained later on as well. Also, as a side note, my showing Potter was comprised of 80% adults (and was completely sold-out). On Lord of the Rings, the books... Wow, what a series. This is, indeed, the best bunch of books in all of literature (including the not-as-dark Hobbit book). That's no feat, considering what a rabid Dune fan I am. Such a massively illustrated setting. Attention to detail exceeds anything Lucas could could possibly hope to attain. (Did Lucas bother to create several languages, calendars, or an entire history of civilization for Star Wars??) The characters are amazing (Aragorn/Strider is a God), the action is fierce, and the story development is simply incredible. Hell, even Tolkien's songs are good. If you haven't picked up Fellowship of the Ring (or even The Hobbit), run, don't walk, to your nearest bookstore. You won't be disappointed. On Lord of the Rings, the movie... In my opinion, I think this will be a much better movie than Harry Potter. It is the greatest fiction ever put on paper, after all. Judging by the trailers alone, Peter Jackson has done Tolkien's series a great service. I have no doubt that this will a grand epic people will discuss for years on end. I'll reserve judgment on the casting until after seeing the flick, though. Unlike Chris Col(D)umbus, I see Jackson making this a movie event and not a book-on-video translation. For that reason alone, I can't wait to see this movie. December can't get here fast enough... On the Great (and Friggin Idiotic) Debate... These two movies are sooooooo different from each other. Why is everyone comparing them? Why not compare SUVs to sedans? They're both used for driving, but their purposes and functions (not to mention target audiences) are most likely different. The audience of the two films are similar, but the scope of the movies are not. Will I see both movies? You betcha. Will I enjoy both? Undoubtedly. Go see both and be happy that neither is mindless drivel like Tomb Raider. My fiancee remarked the other day that finally, we have something good to see in the theater. I completely agree after witnessing this summer's lineup of crapfest movies. You can go back to your b****ing and moaning when movies the likes of The Scorpion King come out next summer... Finally: Will LOTR outgross HP? Not a chance. Sorry. I wish it would, but there's a remote possibilty of that happening. Does that make it a worse movie? Hell no. Batman and Robin outgrossed Memento. Which one is the better movie? Hmmmmm... Let me think...
Is reading The Hobbit necessary to understand LOTR? I keep forgetting that Peter Jackson is at the helm for the LOTR movies. Hell, if you didn't like The Frighteners, you've got problems. Now, I understand if you didn't like Heavenly Creatures, but I thought it was brilliant. That makes me a little more excited about it.
Man, I hate seeing the Dungeons and Dragons nerds fighting among themselves over which nerd movie will do better at the box office. It's sad, really.
