FOTR Vs. Harry Potter (Chamber)

[RiderOfRohan]

What's you opinion.<BR>FOTR killed Potter in my opinion.

[mollecon]

I'm certainly a LOTR fan, not a HP fan - but I think they should be seen as entirely different movies. And seen like that, HP is pretty entertaining & fun...

[Helkahothion]

Well I am a lotr fan but I don't dislike hp. I think harry potter is just lotr for kids. OK there are diferrences but they have a lot of things in common. If you don't like hp don't go see the movie and if you do well do go to the movie. Oh and yes lotr ttt is going to kick hp's ***
________
Dc Marijuana Dispensary

[TealDude3]

Another forum involving HP? I say it all the time:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Do not medle in the affairs of HP fans, for they are subtle and quick to anger.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Anyway, I haven't read HP yet, but with all the aclaim it is getting it must be good. I think TTT will do better than HP:COS this year. TTT is much more anticipated.

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

I liked <I>The Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone</I> film, but <I>Chamber of Secrets</I> wasn't nearly as good. They left out way too much. It didn't even seem like they were going to school in that one! I liked the books so much better.<BR>As for LOTR... I love the movie, I love the books... they are different, but it is in a good way. Some things are changed in the movie, but it still works. I think that HP didn't work as well because they left out some really important stuff and it went by too fast (hard to believe since the movie was long).

[-Imrahil-]

Harry Potter is definately up their. The movies are quite entertaining, though not on the same level as FotR. The books, likewise, are wonderful books but not quite on Tolkien's level.

[Iargwath]

Both do appeal to different age groups. Harry Potter obviously for the younger, and LotR for the older people. <BR>But i have to say that i like the Harry Potter movies, they are quite funny...except for that giant spider thing named Aragog...hehe.<BR>But in my opinion LotR will always beat Harry Potter for many reasons...from plot to quality of film.

[Harmonica]

I´m 40, but ADORE Harry Potter! And I LOVE LOTR!

[Iargwath]

Whoops...well scratch that out

[Helkahothion]

Yes and i'm 15 and I'm a great fan of lotr!<P>(unless you don't think I'm young that way I would be flatterd )
________
Clear trichomes

[Bill Ferny]

I don't understand. FOTR has been out for almost a year and has already had two DVD releases. Chamber of Secrets just came out in the movie theatre, so I don't know how they can be compared.<P>It seems more reasonable to compare FOTR with Sorcerer's Stone, than with Chamber of Secrets. Lets do that!<P>On opening day Sorcerer's Stone blew out FOTR, making nearly 30 mil more than Fellowship, and went on to make 116.4 million more dollars than FOTR over the long haul. Fellowship did edge HP in DVD sales over the whole running by about 10 mil, but the first month DVD sales of HP was much higher than FOTR's first month. Of course, some extra money was earned via special edition of FOTR. All in all, there is no significant difference in DVD sales between FOTR and Sorcerer’s Stone, and the difference can be accounted for by the extra sales of the special edition (FOTR is ranked at 15, HP at 20 when I checked today). So as far as DVD sales goes, the two movies are close runners.<P>Bearing these facts in mind, it seems that HP killed FOTR. This doesn’t include merchandizing, which I’m sure would see HP edge out FOTR in a big away (after all kids buy toys, or at least their parents do). However, for you blue LotR fans who just can’t stand to see Tolkien second best to anything, keep this in mind: this is the same paying public that spent 80.03 million dollars on the opening weekend of SWII: Attack of the Clones; we aren’t talking about a lot of grey matter here.

[-Imrahil-]

Well that is just because so many kids love HP. Doesn't means it "better".

[Manwe Sulimo]

If you're looking at the books, which one was voted "best book of the century/millenia"?<P>Tigerlily: Of course CoS seemed lacking, but remember, it was almost as long as TTT is going to be. You can't include everything (*cough* Bombadil *cough*).<P>As for CoS vs. FotR, I think FotR blew it away. I mean, it was awesome! The only thing I though was better in CoS was the Basilisk....I mean, that was awesome, especially with surround-sound. (Even if it did look like they just took <I>Jurassic Park</I>'s Tyranasaur head and put it on a snake's body....). I'm comparing the basilisk to the cave troll (nothing can beat the Balrog! Yea!)<P>And doesn't the spider scene in CoS just scream "<I>The Hobbit</I>! <I>The Hobbit</I>!"?<P>Anywho....CoS was good, FotR was better....let the religious debates about CoS begin! (j/k)

[Beruthiel]

Well LOTR ruled in my opinion, even though statiscally HP might have done better in cinemas.<P>oh and another thing someone said:I liked The Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone film, but Chamber of Secrets wasn't nearly as good. They left out way too much<P>but I saw it yesterday and it was exactly like the book! Plus I thought it was better than the Philosopher's stone.

Well, I'm a fan of both LOTR and HP. I don't like comparing the books because I think they are entirely different. But considering the movies, bringing to life the work of Tolkien is certainly a blast.

[Helkahothion]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>On opening day Sorcerer's Stone blew out FOTR, making nearly 30 mil more than Fellowship, and went on to make 116.4 million more dollars than FOTR over the long haul<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>But you forget that afther fotr a lot of new lotr fans came. It was that afther the movie the selling of the books boomed. So I guess we will just have to wait so we can compare hp cos and lotr ttt.
________
FREE VAPORIZER

[Manwe Sulimo]

Guys, it's sort of like comparing <I>Jurassic Park</I> to <I>The Land Before Time</I>. Both were pretty big hits (I'm guessing with the cartoon, but they did make upwards of 5 sequals), but with their own audiences. <P>I know HP isn't that childish, but it's just an example.

[Orual]

LoL, Manwe! I love the analogy! I agree with Manwe and ava.luthien. LotR and HP are such totally different works that it's almost impossible to compare them. It'd probably be more nearly fair to compare HP and the Hobbit, since they're both books aimed at the younger set (though who doesn't like the Hobbit?). But for their raw cinematic merit, I think that LotR blew HP away; the acting was better (as can be expected from an older and more experienced cast), the scenery was better (as can be expected from a $100 million plus movie), and the overall experience was more powerful (as can be expected from a director as totally devoted as Peter Jackson). I think that though Harry Potter can stand its ground amid the storm of holiday movies, nothing compares to the Lord of the Rings.<P>But I might be a little biased.<P>~*~Orual~*~

[Nieninque]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> <BR>Well, I'm a fan of both LOTR and HP. I don't like comparing the books because I think they are entirely different. <BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Me too ^^ Non-Potter fans must realize that the books grow and mature along with Harry. He's 11 in the first book, 12 in the second, and so on. So eventually he will be 17 years old, which is a far cry from a 'child' (to some people, anyway).

[GreyIstar]

Personally when I do have kids and they are old enough to read well I will give them the Hobbit before even thinking about Harry Potter.<P>As for the movies. The FOTR blew away HP as a movie experience. It also brought middle-earth ro people who had no idea what they were missing. My dad, my brother and some friends are just a few I know. I know many who went out and bought the books because they couldn't stand waiting to see what happened. And based on that Id say there will be a lot more people going to see the Two Towers than the Fellowship. Most of my friends had no clue what it was a year ago today and now all they tell me is I can't wait for the next movie to come out.<P>For that alone Id say the FOTR blew away Harry Potter.

[VanimaEdhel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Both do appeal to different age groups. Harry Potter obviously for the younger, and LotR for the older people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The new HP movie scared all the kids that were in the theater with me though...the girl in front of me (who was bout 6 or 7) started <I>screaming</I> at the Whomping Willow and then cried on-and-off for the rest of the movie. I would have been petrified if I had seen it when I was young. The books, on the other hand, yes, are written for younger people, but I know adults who avidly read them and devote themselves to Wizards' Studies (yes, they're weird, but oh well, so am I).<P>And, the best part of the Harry Potter movies for me is still Sean Biggerstaff (Oliver Wood)...but it still have nothing to Lord of the Rings.<P>Book-wise, LotR and HP are not even in the same category. The writing style of LotR is far superior, I believe.<P>And I'm 15, by the way, so the age thing doesn't really work...

[Merri]

I saw Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets on Friday. <P><I>Harry Potter</I> was disappointing because<BR>1) They left out A LOT<BR>2) The characters were NOT developed AT ALL<BR>3) It was a bit slow<P>If it hadn't been so cold in the movie theater I might have fallen asleep.<P>Why I like FOTR:<BR>1) Costumes & Scenery stunning<BR>2) Characters well developed<BR>3) Not slow for one second (well, maybe a little too much fighting)<BR>4) Actors perfect for their roles.<P>I think I've been fully convinced that LOTR movies are better than the Harry Potter ones, but I like the Harry Potter books a touch more than the LOTR books. Still, I consider myself a Tolkien fanatic, and a fanatic babbler, so . . .<P>[Edit]: I got the title first and the second books confused. For a while I thought FOTR was the second one . . . *sigh*<p>[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Merri ]

[Emni Windrunner]

I think <I>The Chamber of Secrets</I> could have been a lot better if they had been more careful about what they cut and what they left in. That's the beauty of FOTR (I don't know about TTT yet, obviously): they kept in everything necessary to the story, and cut most of the extras (e.g. Tom Bombadil) without making it look like they'd cut extras. With HP, though, they made cuts for time that made sense, yet they left in other things that no longer made sense because of what they cut. A case in point: There was absolutely no reason whatsoever for Harry to come out of the fireplace at Knockturn Alley. It makes sense in the book, because that's where Harry sees Lucius Malfoy selling off a bunch of Voldemort's old stuff, but since they took that entire scene out of the movie, there was no point at all for having the Knockturn Alley sequence in there. There were some other things that should have (or just could have) been cut that weren't because they were trying to stay true to the book. Aragog was completely dispensible in the book, to say nothing of the movie, and if you take out Aragog (which I wish they had; I have arachnophobia that makes Ron's look like nothing), you don't have to even have the flying car in, if you think about it. However, best to leave the car in, since it introduces the Whomping Willow, and it stays true to the book with little time wasted. But, as my roommate pointed out, they could have removed Dobby entirely, saved stacks of time, and changed the story very little to do it (another change I wish they'd made; I hate that little runt with a purple passion). Unlike FOTR, which was tightly held together in spite of all of the cuts, CoS felt flighty, like it jumped around a lot. Thus, in terms of comparing effectiveness in translating the books to screen, FOTR kicks CoS's butt several times over, and I have a feeling TTT will do the same.

[dragoneyes]

I haven't seen CoS yet, I'll go later, I have a feeling I'll do nothing but complain about it, I have a tendancy to do that but the way the two movies (FotR and Philosopher's stone) were set out and how they flowed, FotR was far superior. I felt to completely understand HP you had to have read the books because Harry would walk up to a random person and go "Hi Neville!" and you'd just go "Oh, so you KNOW him?" whereas I could understand LotR well enough without reading it first and when it came to reading it I was pleasantly surprized with the extra bits.<P>I can't comment on what it would be like seeing the Hp movie before reading the books.

[Manwe Sulimo]

Well, they need Dobby for the fourth movie...he's a sorta important character.

[Finiel]

um...hi guys. im new here.<BR>but i just wanted to say that before I became a LOTR fan I was a HP diehard. I had not heard of Tolkien until I watched the LOTR movie because Tolkien's books were quite forgotten in my country so the movie kindda ressurected Tolkien's books.<P>And as for HP, the movie only s*cked because Chris Columbus was the director and their scripwriters might have been the scripwriters of Star Wars (noticed how empty some dialogue in STar Wars?).<BR>I say, let P.J. direct HP and it would be fantastic like LOTR. <P>I'm a fan of SW, HP, and LOTR but LOTR is the best. <p>[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Finiel ]