 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Books: Harry Potter as much because I read them to my kids until they were old enough to read them themselves.
Films: LOTR, because well, swords and battles and shit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago
Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum |
Bookwise, LOTR, as I haven't read Harry Potter and don't intend to.
Filmwise, difficult one. The LOTR films cut out and messed around a lot from the books, but the extended versions were better. I do like the Harry Potter films a lot. They are great fun, at least until the last two. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Bookwise, LOTR, as I haven't read Harry Potter and don't intend to.
Filmwise, difficult one. The LOTR films cut out and messed around a lot from the books, but the extended versions were better. I do like the Harry Potter films a lot. They are great fun, at least until the last two."
The battle at Helms Deep almost made me cry. It was like Jackson had looked into my head reading it and put it on screen. But too much alteration and no Tom Bombadil  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *igeiaWoman
over a year ago
Bristol |
Harry Potter has its own inner nostalgia since it's so Enid Blytonesque. But Lord of the Rings I have loved for decades so it will always be first in my heart. Both had decent film adaptations (despite missing out Tom Bombadil the LOTR films had better movies). The Hobbit movies were awful but don't detract from how wonderful the book is. Harry Potter has more strong female characters though, something the LOTR film versions tried to shoehorn in (Eowyn does kick arse but Hermione is integral). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago
Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum |
"Bookwise, LOTR, as I haven't read Harry Potter and don't intend to.
Filmwise, difficult one. The LOTR films cut out and messed around a lot from the books, but the extended versions were better. I do like the Harry Potter films a lot. They are great fun, at least until the last two.
The battle at Helms Deep almost made me cry. It was like Jackson had looked into my head reading it and put it on screen. But too much alteration and no Tom Bombadil "
I didn't mind that they didn't put in Bombadil. I've recently re-read LOTR and he comes across as a bit of a Gary Stu.
I was peeved about the amount of Arwen though, at the detriment of other, better characters. However it was a very good adaptation of possibly one of the hardest books to adapt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Harry Potter has its own inner nostalgia since it's so Enid Blytonesque. But Lord of the Rings I have loved for decades so it will always be first in my heart. Both had decent film adaptations (despite missing out Tom Bombadil the LOTR films had better movies). The Hobbit movies were awful but don't detract from how wonderful the book is. Harry Potter has more strong female characters though, something the LOTR film versions tried to shoehorn in (Eowyn does kick arse but Hermione is integral). "
Yeah the hobbit wasn't great they got lazy I think with the cgi orcs peter Jackson tried to save the films because he wasn't in charge of them but sadly he couldn't
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago
Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum |
"I first encountered LOTR with the animated version by Ralph Bakshi. John Hurt voicing Aragorn 
Have it on DVD somewhere"
I've got that too. Saw it at the cinema when it came out. Its a shame he ran out of money half way through. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I first encountered LOTR with the animated version by Ralph Bakshi. John Hurt voicing Aragorn
Have it on DVD somewhere
I've got that too. Saw it at the cinema when it came out. Its a shame he ran out of money half way through."
Yes would have been good to see the whole thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I've watched numerous films that I read as books through my childhood and LOTR is by far the best adaptation (of what is possibly one of the hardest books to ever make into a script) of a classic book to the big screen. As with all screenplays there are bits missing or told differently to my interpretation of the books but overall I'm not sure it could have been bettered. I can't lie though and must say I did enjoy the Potter films but have never read the books. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've watched numerous films that I read as books through my childhood and LOTR is by far the best adaptation (of what is possibly one of the hardest books to ever make into a script) of a classic book to the big screen. As with all screenplays there are bits missing or told differently to my interpretation of the books but overall I'm not sure it could have been bettered. I can't lie though and must say I did enjoy the Potter films but have never read the books."
I read the books first and the films just weren't as good for me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
H x
