I've never read the books but I saw the movie and I wasn't terribly impressed though there are a few cool special effects. It's really long and really slow at times. I don't think it will be too difficult for LOTR to be a better film even though I've read it might be really long too. Who cares about the box office? If they went by tickets sold, one of those old classics like Gone With the Wind would probably run circles around Harry Potter.
Um, I think so. I tried to get into the first book of the trilogy, and it has this long foreword that tries to quickly bring you up to speed but ends up sounding like a looooong history lesson. Reading "The Hobbit" instead sounded like a more enjoyable proposition (get the whole storyline, as well as your own interpretation of some of the events outlined in the foreword).
I'm throwing in my two cents by saying that those of you who are bashing Harry Potter as strictly a kid's movie are being a bit unfair. Some of you are probably the same cultists who thought "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" was an amazing cinematic piece. It was okay, but the storyline was pretty bad... and yet there's hope because Star Wars is seen as a "space opera"... and in this case this is supposedly the first act, where a kid is enjoying his life and major characters are introduced. The second and third movies will undoubtedly get darker (and hopefully better). In that way, the first Harry Potter movie (and book) make much more sense. The series gets darker, as has been mentioned, and much more detailed in an adult way. Everything has a setup, and this is definitely the case for a series that will be 7 books long. I haven't read the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, so I won't claim to know anything about it. The previews, though, definitely look great. And I heard that Tolkien's estate wouldn't let the movies be made unless the books were followed well, so it sounds like the results will be very high quality. It may do as well as Harry Potter, actually. The comparison to Star Wars as a franchise is apt. Both series will be around for a while and rake in the dough. Chris Columbus sucks. Did anyone really expect any ingenuity from the guy who made Home Alone 2? I cringed at the thought of him directing Harry Potter, and now he's doing the sequel, too. Ugh. When you take in ticket price inflation, I believe "Gone with the Wind" is the highest grossing movie of all time (domestically). It may now be second behind "Titanic" simply because it was such a juggernaut.
RM95, You just seem to be much more apt to personal attacks recently...I could be wrong, though. In any event, I agree that peope should not trash it if they have not read/seen it, but I also allow for those that would have no interest to do either. Some people simply do not gravitate towards such things. The main thing I have heard over and over is that the movie is nothing original and that those who have not read the books will have little to keep them entertained. This is the reason I will not see it. This whole LOTR vs Harry Potter deal is a waste. Let it go, people.
Red Sox suck, oh wait, you cry about that everynight before you go to sleep. Rocket104, We haven't finished the 4th one yet. My girlfriend and I are reading it together (yeah, I know it's cheesy, but I love her), and we haven't had much of a chance to make much headway...can't wait until Christmas. I agree with you, the pronunciation doesn't sound right. rimbaud, Maybe you're right...I haven't noticed. I also agree that people will know what they won't like, so why waste your time doing it. It's when you call those things stupid or those who do like those things stupid that I get pissed.
Ill probably rent it when it comes out on video though. Actually, I dont cry about the Sox. We will see about next season. RM95- check the fantasy forum.
Is reading The Hobbit necessary to understand LOTR? Not really. If you know basically what happened in the Hobbit, you'll be cool. I could summarize it in about 2 sentences, but I don't want to give it away if you haven't read it yet. There's also a pretty decent animated adaptation of the Hobbit if you don't want to read it.
Well, I wanna give it a shot...maybe I can finish it by the time they come out-I have so many half read books right now it's not even funny.
I would say you would want to read The Hobbit first. Definitely don't skip it because you're in a hurry...I think you'd be missing out a little. Besides, it's a great book.
I agree. <i>The Hobbit</i> is a wonderful book. It's like LOTR minus the tedious "grand epic war" stuff and with a more interesting main character.
Defintely agree with Fadeaway about Bilbo being a better character than Frodo. FOTR could beat HP, doubtful but could, if the movie is done very well. LOTR does appeal to kids. It all depends on if LOTR captures the hope of people much like Star Wars and transends to audiences outside its primary fan base. I believe LOTR has the stroyline to be a great trilogy, but adaptation tends to mess up things. HP is a good series thru the first two books. I liked the movie except it didn't separate itself from the book. I expect HP to drop off after three or 4 weeks.
I am glad the end of the year for movie quality is making up for the lousy spring and summer crappo movies of 2001 (overall)....Nov. and Dec. is shaping up as a solid movie fest with much, much better quality...
And her favorite leisure time passion in unmentionable...'eh. Good to know that not all smart women are stupid.
Not so much really finished with it yet, but a quarter fell out of someone's pocket while I was showing that person the first rough edit. And Gavin left his pen at my apartment after watching the rough edit. So, I've made 25 cents and a pen that's worth at least a dollar on ...almost, which is more than I ever expected from it.
I was just thinking. Some of you are saying that one of the reasons Harry Potter will defeat LOTR at the box office is because of its aggressive marketing and broad appeal. Well, everybody who saw Harry Potter also saw Trailer 2 for LOTR. And Ill bet you that it impressed most who saw it, even if they had not previously heard of LOTR. That will help a lot in my opinion.
I disagree. HP has more broad appeal, which will lead to more ticket sales. LOTR is not aimed at kids the way HP is. The LOTR trilogy can be quite violent at times and rather hard to understand, language-wise (at least the books were). Because of this, I don't see many parents taking their young children to this movie. Further proof is in the ratings. This is what imdb.com had to say: HP: "Rated PG for some scary moments and mild language" FOTR: "Rated PG-13 for epic battle sequences and some scary images" If parents take stock in movie ratings, that PG-13 rating will deter them from taking their children. Therefore, the core audience of FOTR will be drastically reduced. The only way FOTR can make up ground is with repeat viewings (i.e. staying power).
