Harry Potter

[GhaleonOne]

Anyone see the latest one? I really have to say, I'm probably just going to read the books. The movies are really good, and everyone keeps saying they don't even compare to the books.

[phyco126]

Well, I tried to get my dad and stepmom to see it, but they don't like them all that much. *sigh* And it would have been for IMax 3D

I am, however, looking forward to seeing it eventually.

[AnimeJei]

I think I enjoyed it more the second time, not as good as the book though. It was pretty good though considering they cut a lot out. Less than a week till book 7! ^^

[PrettyGirlJean]

I just saw it in IMAX yesterday, and it was pretty sweet! The 3D for the last 20 minutes was really awesome, it made me a little dizzy too. I haven't seen a movie in 3D like this before that's for sure; I would definitely recommend it if you're going to see it at the theater!

Also, and of course this is personal preference, would recommend against reading the books before seeing the movie if possible. I know I would wind up comparing the movie to the book the entire time which is unfair since the book can be as long as need be while the movie has time constraints... and let's face it, it's just a different media altogether :p So comparing would ruin the movie experience for me. Saying that, I haven't read the 5th book (in fact I'm currently reading the 4th), and I really enjoyed the movie. The action was great and its becoming more mature and intense as more is revealed about Voldemorte and Harry's relationship to one another and many other plot elements.

I'm not sure that it's my favorite HP, it seemed like a bit less happened in it than the rest, I'm not so sure why, I guess it could've been because there wasn't a quidditch game in it. Not sure. The acting was really great in it, all the characters remained well in character and it was great getting to see the growth of the younger actors as well.

I don't want to say too much and spoil the movie so for now I wont' say anymore ^^ I highly recommend the movie though. I'll definitely be looking forward to reading the book, and I'm sure it'll be hard to keep myself from reading book 6 and 7 but I hope that I can so I can hold out for the movies.

[AnimeJei]

Going in you gotta expect the movies not to be as "good" as the books because they have to cut somethings because of time. OotP was originally 3 hours long but after the cuts it was 2 hr 15 mins.. I wouldn't have minded 3 hours though but it was still really great and flowed well. It's interesting too since book 5 was the longest book yet this was the shortest movie. But I really love how dark they made it. When Harry Potter first came out I wasn't interested but then I seen the first 2 movies and then started to read all the books and now I love it, JK Rolwing is a genius. But I agree, if you can.. see the movies first then read the books. I wish I could but I don't have the patience.. especially because Deathly Hallows comes out next Saturday and the movie won't be out till 2010..


edit: Sigh, someone got their hands on the 7th book and posted a lot of spoilers alone with chapter names/pics. At first I thought it was fake but then I am hearing news that they got a subpoena to indentify the person who put it out there.. so it seems pretty real. And I "accidently" seen the spoilers... it's kind of disappointing... I hope some way this is all fake.

[Ozone]

For starters, I'm not a real fan of the Harry Potter stuff, mainly because people keep trying to compare it to Tolkien, which is impossible, Tolkien blows Rowlings out of the water on every level.

The movie is okay, and the magic battle at the end is pretty cool. Ultimately, it is better than the first three, but not as good as the last. The acting is starting to improve though

I found it amusing how some nut posted false spoilers to the Deathly Hallows all over the internet saying that it's what Pope Benedict wanted them to do. xD Oh boy! Imposing neo-pagan ideals on young children. Oh for goodness sake, it's a fantasy book, let it go. If you want to discuss literature, how about discussing The Witch's Hammer, you fool. HAR!

[GhaleonOne]

For starters, I'm not a real fan of the Harry Potter stuff, mainly because people keep trying to compare it to Tolkien, which is impossible, Tolkien blows Rowlings out of the water on every level.

I don't think they're even compatible though. People try and compare Rowlings, C.S. Lewis, and Tolkien all the time, and all three wrote stories that were so much different than the others that it's hard to really say one is better than the other, because they're all unique and different.

Though I will agree with you. I still like the fourth movie the best, but the latest one is better than the first three for me.

[Ozone]

For starters, I'm not a real fan of the Harry Potter stuff, mainly because people keep trying to compare it to Tolkien, which is impossible, Tolkien blows Rowlings out of the water on every level.

I don't think they're even compatible though. People try and compare Rowlings, C.S. Lewis, and Tolkien all the time, and all three wrote stories that were so much different than the others that it's hard to really say one is better than the other, because they're all unique and different.

Though I will agree with you. I still like the fourth movie the best, but the latest one is better than the first three for me.

It's really the way that they compare them. Most HP freaks that I know have never even picked up a Tolkien book and praise her inventiveness and say (without reading LOTR) that HP is so much more inventive. Considering that Tolkien came up with whole new languages, dialects, and writing styles... not to mention a whole freaking world (and its history), I have to dispute the claim automatically.

[GhaleonOne]

Oh yeah, neither Potter or Narnia can come close to the size and scope of Lord of the Rings and all it's history.

After reading Narnia, I always wished Lewis had done more with it, like how Tolkien wrote the Silmarion (however it's spelled, too tired to look it up) with all it's history and the like. In a way, Lord of the Rings is a bit like Lunar. The creators of Lunar did a lot of backstory and wrote more about the history of the world that the game was set in than most RPG's ever dream of going into. I think that's why it's got such a cult following. I even think Rowlings could do well if she wrote more about the history of Hogwarts and the like.

I dunno. I used to dislike Harry Potter, but I never gave it a good shake, and now that I have, I'm pretty impressed by it. But you're right. I don't think anything can compare to the traditions and overall scope of what Tolkien did.

[Werefrog]

Truly, the only thing I like about LoTR is the back-story of the world. I dislike Tolkien's writing style quite a bit (at least in LoTR, I loved The Hobbit's fast paced style).

[Ozone]

Truly, the only thing I like about LoTR is the back-story of the world. I dislike Tolkien's writing style quite a bit (at least in LoTR, I loved The Hobbit's fast paced style).

<3 The Hobbit

[ilovemyguitar]

After reading Narnia, I always wished Lewis had done more with it, like how Tolkien wrote the Silmarion (however it's spelled, too tired to look it up) with all it's history and the like. In a way, Lord of the Rings is a bit like Lunar. The creators of Lunar did a lot of backstory and wrote more about the history of the world that the game was set in than most RPG's ever dream of going into. I think that's why it's got such a cult following. I even think Rowlings could do well if she wrote more about the history of Hogwarts and the like.

You might be interested in this article.

[Sonic#]

Oh yes; Rowling had never ruled out in interviews that she wouldn't write another Harry Potter book, but she's always stressed it'd be informational and for charity, along the lines of Quiddich Through the Ages and the monster book that came out several years back.

Between that, her website, and a few other sources like interviews, it's clear that she's put a lot of thought into the world. Her emphases are some of the richest. Instead of going for simple flora and fauna and bare organizations, she livens it up with cultures, with sports, with a variety of professions, with food and drink... with all the ways that this world can touch the real world.

Read this article, and tell me what the person, an English major, doesn't get. http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/showarticle. ... leid=51539. Yes, there's already been a letter response published, but it's not on the website, sadly.

I think she undervalues many themes of interest in the story, from an academic perspective. More than that, she glosses over the act of creation, of creating a world that doesn't defy what we see, but augments it; that doesn't invalidate what we feel, but represents it; that doesn't require thought to access it, but invites thought nonetheless; that in its accessability is entertaining, and thus hopefully the access point for many other books to be read and enjoyed.

C.S. Lewis did the same thing in his novels. I'm a fan of his non-Narnia fiction as well (The Screwtape Letters, Till We Have Faces, his space trilogy), but it was clear in Narnia that he was creating a world to come back to again and again, one that would start and end under our watch. Perhaps we don't have as much access to the details in his mind (I only have a companion book that talks about a lot of the animals and such, which pretty much glosses the books), but he didn't throw up a few symbols of Christianity and call it quits, no matter what some people I know imply. >_< Sadly, I haven't read them too recently, so I can't give particulars of the food.

Though Tolkien was the grand master here. He had food (lembas), drink (elven wine, orc draught, ales, meads), herbs (athelas), artifacts, a rich legend of all the different races and their predecessors, and all set in a Middle-Earth that is a mythological land in itself. Delicious.

[Diz]

Well I work at a IMAX theatre and I seen this movies ending in 3D and I much say it is well worth while. I never knew how popular these movies were untill the premeir we had so many sold out shows with it selling out theatres that seats 710, 598 and 350 people all sold out for the whole first week and still selling out everyday. It makes me want to take interest in the movies and watch them on a day off.

[DeathBeforeDenial]

J.K. Rowling has most certainly created a rich world for the Wizards and Witches to exist in, a lot is drawn from existing mythology of various cultures, but with stylistic and creative tweaks that really make them their own within the Harry Potter Universe. However any fan that compares it to the depth of Lord of the Rings, is a fool. Yet virulent LotR fans that refuse to real Harry Potter because they think it's for kids, or is trying to be the next LotR are equally foolish.

The Harry Potter series is just an incredibly interesting, fun, and well-written story. You see so much growth in everything, the story, the characters, indeed the author herself. Anyone who fancies themselves a fan of any great sci-fi/fantasy story (Star Trek/Wars, LotR, Cthulu, His Dark Materials etc) would enjoy Harry Potter.

[CatsWithMatches]

I find it necessary to differentiate between writing and storytelling. Tolkien was easily one of the greatest storytellers that ever lived, but in some places his writing is kind of sloppy. (for the record, I have read all of the LoTRs, and the Potters, and Narnia.)

For example, I found the council of Elrond particularly difficult to get through in Fellowship. And don't get me started on how labor-intensive Sillmarillion is. Not that they have any less worth as literary works, their value is in different areas. The Potters are FAR harder to put down, but Rowling sure didn't innovate anywhere near as much.

Not a fair comparison at all.

[GhaleonOne]

That's the thing. Everyone is going to have their favorites. I know I'm in a minority, but I like Narnia more than Potter or LotRs. But I wouldn't say it's better written, or should be crowned king. It just has a charm that I love. Kinda like Lunar.

[AnimeJei]

For me I can't compare Tolkien, Lewis, and now Rowling..they are all different in their own way which has been said. I am not much of a book person but all three of these people get me to read books more. I think LOTRs is deeper, whereas HP I always look forward to the good plot twists, and Chronicles of Narnia is just good old fun fantasy. Like I said, I am not much of a book person..way more into cinema and the adaption of LOTRs is the best.. right now nothing can compare to it. As for the books I think Narnia and HP is fun and great reading for all ages whereas LOTRs is deeper and is more appreciated more after it is read in grade school. But all are great in their unique way.

[AlasdairPalemoon]

That's the thing. Everyone is going to have their favorites. I know I'm in a minority, but I like Narnia more than Potter or LotRs. But I wouldn't say it's better written, or should be crowned king. It just has a charm that I love. Kinda like Lunar.

I agree with you there, GhaleonOne, in that everyone has their favorites. While I wouldn't say that Lunar is the best RPG ever made, it is my personal favorite, like I know it is for many people here. It's why I hate using words to describe media like 'best' 'greatest', because it's a matter of opinion.