Now dont get me wrong a bigger lord of the rings geek you will not find than me

Bookwise no contest lotr wins hands down

But i find myself struggling to justify the betteredness of the films….. The harry potter films have been a better film adaptation imho simply because it was more adaptable… And the actors (rickman aldman , gambon etc etc) are awesome…

What does stw think?

Tonks is hot too btw

Are you serious?

Errr yes

Lotr was not spectacularly acurate although great it mssed out several themes from the books

Harry potter has been prettty spot on and prettty good imho

Hmmmm… good question… first I need to answer whether I’d rather be punched, or kicked in the testicles… punched or kicked; kicked or punched… I just can’t choose.

Harry Potter obviously

HP for me. LOTR films were over long and tedious.

The LOTR films are great. There’s a lot to like about the Harry Potter films, but personally I find it hard to get past the terrible acting of the main characters.

Its not a like for like comparison. Harry Potter films are for kids, I find them quite boring. Lord of the Rings series was riveting.

This all depends if you’re 12 or 13…….

I can watch LOTR over and over again; HP very dissapointing IMO, tragic examples of miscasting left, right and centre and a lot of the actors seem really unengaged with the whole thing…now audio books of HP read by Steven Fry are a different kettle of fish!!

Both are good entertainment. Have you noticed that ITV have got the word Phoenix wrong (Pheonix) at the moment?

At a film level it is ( or should be) a like for like comparison

Both fantasy, both aimed (initially at kids) both multi book both immersive myththological…

Lotr has the depth but harry potters films i think clinch it almost as if they were made for film…

I too can watch lotr repeatedly but they missed out tom bombadill and saruman from the end!!!

He made it 7 hours long ffs what would it have mattered for another hour in the shire with saruman???

I was a bit disappointed that Tom Bombadil was left out of the film.
Despite that, I’d still say LOTR is the better film series.

Both are good entertainment. Have you noticed that ITV have got the word Phoenix wrong (Pheonix) at the moment?
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoN6XfyQsr4[/video]

okay it’s not harry potter but made me think of this…

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0sc-gS9AqM[/video]

For me there’s no comparison. I grew ip with HP.waiting for the books. Midnight trips and speed reading all night. I think I was 8 or 9 when the first film was made and I’ve watched each one in the cinema with more or less the same few mates. Younger kids will have the books but no other generation will have them in the same way I did. Part of my childhood in a way the LOTR can never be.

Love that dan le sac vs scoobious song

LOTR books and films waaaay betterer,.

last two HP=crap.

Ok for me as a huge lotr fan

Harry potter was simplistic yet 100% true to the books

Lotr started well ( the first film being my favourite ever film) then turned into an action driven rollercoaster to the detriment of the plot and books original themes.

I was obsessed with LoTR as a kid – and re-read it every year for about seven years runnning… but I only enjoyed the first film, principally for the splendid fight scene at the end – which was mercifully free of CGI nonsense.

I care nothing for Harry Potter, mind.

Jesus Christ.

Thatll be the narnia films…

Has anyone been sick yet?

How old are you people? No, let me rephrase that….What is your mental age?

LOTR – best cavalry charge ever committed to film. At the Leicester Sq. Odeon, woman three seats away started waving a clenched fist and shouting “YEEEEESSS!!! DEATH!!!”

Timdrayton – HP wasn’t accurate to the books – they missed out the potion test at the end of the first film for example.

I personally think the LOTR films are spectacular on their own, whereas HP feels like a cinematic obligation and thus I’ve grown bored of them (after the third one actually)

Mind you – you have to wonder about Tolkein’s attitude to women. Only three major characters in the books, and one of them was a flesh-eating giant female spider that lived in a cave at the end of a long, dark, sticky tunnel… 😯

schrickvr6 – Member
How old are you people? No, let me rephrase that….What is your mental age?

Honestly, think of something insightful to post ffs what happened your late show not record?

LotR seems a few levels above to me – certainly the first one is in a different street to any of the HP films.
The ending of the books with the eagles is execrable, so it’s not like Jackson could do anything about that. Missing out Sharkey and the Shire seems inexplicable, although I’m sure he had his reasons – the ending he dished up has passed into bad-cinema legend.

I guess that LotR has such masses of world-building behind it that it’s always going to be under the microscope more than other film adaptions.

I like the HP films just fine but the acting is definitely a double-edged sword. The old luvvies (every last one of them on the books of equity, from the looks of it) bring some class to proceedings, but the child actors at the centre are dreadful.

the ending he dished up has passed into bad-cinema legend.

How so?

schrickvr6

mental age of 8

Fairpoint alaistair

I did love the lotr films but the second and more so the third was ruined (for me) by the inconsistencies with the original plot.

If i hadnt read the books i would think they were cool films if with a poorly thought out/ explained ending…

The harry potter films never deviated to the point where it affected plot and storyline and themes imho

Sorry if I hurt your feelings Tim, I admit it Harry is the daddy. All better now?

lord of the rings get my vote.

I’ve been too busy catching up on the latest Dungeons and Dragons rule book amendments to form an accurate critique of the above films.

I believe there will always be a compromise of what they can fit in the films. The first few harry potters missed plenty of detail which would of made it better further along the films they included more details. I also believe that because of technoligy they should do some of the earlier films making them better.

schrickvr6 – Member
Sorry if I hurt your feelings Tim, I admit it Harry is the daddy. All better now?

Yeah no probs, but only if you admit harry is your daddy, and that you want some wand action

🙂

LOTR…..I can just about stomach them a little bit more than the Harry Potter films but not by much

There is only one saga

Actually that reminds me of a story my wifes pal told me when Fellowship came out. She was going to see a film that was on at the same time and to kill some time she went to the pub next door. Around a table were five guys. Sixth guy comes over with a bottle of champagne and six glasses. He pours the drinks, hands them out and in the middle of the pub raises his glass and proclaims

“To Middle Earth”

Apparently he turned round to see the whole pub hating him

I recall watching the first Potter film at the cinema and seeing a trailer for Fellowship beforehand. I then sat through the entire film hating it because it wasn’t LOTR. That sort of sums it up (although I watched Potter again and subsequently rather enjoyed it).

“What is your mental age?”

17

Don’t like HP. I think it’s the insidious elitism aspect that bothers me. I can’t relate to kids experience of going to a boarding school.

I hear what you are saying about Tolkein and #women characters. But the ones he includes are feisty and sexy 😛 Incidentaly, I reckon Gimli is a girl-dwarf. She’s the reason why Legolas hangs around.

TLoTR for me.