harry potter vs narnia all vote now

exanda kane

Originally posted by Mr Watson
NO IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS!

Any reason or not familiar with standard english?

And hpfanatic, thats just not a swipe at at the american filmnindusrty, because in terms of strength hollywodds always done much better than the british film industry, but the americans tend to remake alot of things and condense them for american culture. A prime example is U571-Widowmaker, made by hollywood so that the main protagonist navy are American. In real life, the americans weren't even in that battle, it was the british.

Narnia wasn't good for what it was. It was a disappointment, it stuck to the book though, but after expecting something as great as LotR I was sourly disappointed. it lacked all the quality that made the books great.

And a suggestion, if your not too old, I'd recommend you read the chronicles of Narnia. I read them as a kid and they were great, but they are childrens stories unlike HP which has really outgorwn your typical childhood tale. Speaking of which the first 2 HP films were so horribly childish I hated them.

#1Rupert_Lover

Originally posted by exanda kane
Any reason or not familiar with standard english?

And hpfanatic, thats just not a swipe at at the american filmnindusrty, because in terms of strength hollywodds always done much better than the british film industry, but the americans tend to remake alot of things and condense them for american culture. A prime example is U571-Widowmaker, made by hollywood so that the main protagonist navy are American. In real life, the americans weren't even in that battle, it was the british.

Narnia wasn't good for what it was. It was a disappointment, it stuck to the book though, but after expecting something as great as LotR I was sourly disappointed. it lacked all the quality that made the books great.

And a suggestion, if your not too old, I'd recommend you read the chronicles of Narnia. I read them as a kid and they were great, but they are childrens stories unlike HP which has really outgorwn your typical childhood tale. Speaking of which the first 2 HP films were so horribly childish I hated them.

Well, yeah, since I was ten years old when I saw the first HP movie in theatres, I didn't notice. But the first two weren't geared towards young adults, they were geared towards kids who were my age during that time. And I don't think you should've hoped for another LOTR with the Narnia movie, because that wasn't really going to happen. you could tell from the previews that it wasn't going to be THAT good. Well, I could tell, at least. By the way, thanks for the suggestion.

Unicor777

I haven't read the chonicles of Narnia, but I have seen the movie only. Thus I can not comment until I read the book (books?). And in mean time, " Weasly is a King, he doesn't miss a thing"

exanda kane

Originally posted by #1Rupert_Lover
Well, yeah, since I was ten years old when I saw the first HP movie in theatres, I didn't notice. But the first two weren't geared towards young adults, they were geared towards kids who were my age during that time. And I don't think you should've hoped for another LOTR with the Narnia movie, because that wasn't really going to happen. you could tell from the previews that it wasn't going to be THAT good. Well, I could tell, at least. By the way, thanks for the suggestion.

I'm not too sure what I actually felt about Narnia. I didn't want it to be as good as LotR as I prefer LotR as books anyway and I don't like a lot of the biblical connotations in Narnia, Aslan as jesus etc.

I read HP & The Philosipher's Stone when it first came out way, way back when I must have been 9, so by the time the first film came out I was no longer in the age range that i would have enjoyed it at.

Coonskin 13

I haven't seen the Narnia movie, but from what I've heard it isn't good. But the HP movies are complete trash too, they completely destroy the books. Don't get me wrong, I love HP but the movies are nothing like the books. Based off the books HP (I did read Narnia. All 7. The last one was trash, but the others were pretty good.) However, I thing LOTR beats them both.

exanda kane

Originally posted by Coonskin 13
I haven't seen the Narnia movie, but from what I've heard it isn't good. But the HP movies are complete trash too, they completely destroy the books. Don't get me wrong, I love HP but the movies are nothing like the books. Based off the books HP (I did read Narnia. All 7. The last one was trash, but the others were pretty good.) However, I thing LOTR beats them both.

Correct. You deserve a sticker big grin

sammii

harry potter is by far the best

Kementari

NARNIA

Rapscallion

I haven't seen Narnia, so I can't say definitively which is better, but if I were to guess wich was better, I would say Narnia. The Harry Potter movies were the disappointment of my life. With the exception of th third movie, I hated all of them.

Oh, and I must agree with coonskin, LOTR is so much better than both, that they shouldn't even be compared.

babysooner13

Originally posted by exanda kane
Don't overhype the HP movies though, they have got alot better but the first two were horribly rubbish.

It's a good thing Rowling made the terms on the film,s with only British actors etc. otherwise we'll have some horrible american trying to british trvaesty of a movie.

HORRIBLE AMERICAN??! I take that to offense! mad

Rapscallion

I agree. While many of the actors I like ( Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Ralph Fiennes) others are not up to par (Rupert Grint Richard Gambon). Maybe the movies would have been beter if they had cast actors based on whether or not they were right for the role, instead of basing it on something as irrelevent as nationality.

#1Rupert_Lover

Originally posted by Rapscallion
I agree. While many of the actors I like ( Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Ralph Fiennes) others are not up to par (Rupert Grint Richard Gambon). Maybe the movies would have been beter if they had cast actors based on whether or not they were right for the role, instead of basing it on something as irrelevent as nationality.

I personally think Rupert Grint's an excellent actor, especially in the new HP. And I'm not just saying that because of my name on this thread. People can actually feel for him in GOF and he continues to improve. trust me, I asked tons of people about that, and they agree. Dan, on the other hand, made Harry a little too unemotional. and his crying sounded fake, in my opinion. no offense to the Dan lovers out there.

sammii

i agree the crying was reallly rubbish especially when cedric died .........i think hermione and ron are mint , and julia walters (mrs weasley )

Rapscallion

Originally posted by #1Rupert_Lover
I personally think Rupert Grint's an excellent actor, especially in the new HP. And I'm not just saying that because of my name on this thread. People can actually feel for him in GOF and he continues to improve. trust me, I asked tons of people about that, and they agree. Dan, on the other hand, made Harry a little too unemotional. and his crying sounded fake, in my opinion. no offense to the Dan lovers out there.

I disagree. While I thought Dan was pretty bad in the first two, I think he's made enormous strides as an actor and really came into his own in the third movie. He also has a much more challenging role than rupert does. He has to tackle some serious emotional scenes. He doesm't always do them very well, but given his age, he's more than decent. Rupert on the other hand has a very fluffy, thin role (I put the blame on the writers for this) and doesn't have the opportunity to show all his ability. That said, he seems to be having enough trouble with the simple role of the sidekick and comic relief. He usually onlyhas one facial expression per film. in the first it was confusion. In the second, it was fear, in the third he didn't have any wich was an improvement because he was less noticable and therefor less anoying. In the fourth, he pouted all the time. I know he doesn't have very strong material to work with, but he could do much better.

exanda kane

Originally posted by Rapscallion
I agree. While many of the actors I like ( Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Ralph Fiennes) others are not up to par (Rupert Grint Richard Gambon). Maybe the movies would have been beter if they had cast actors based on whether or not they were right for the role, instead of basing it on something as irrelevent as nationality.

Choosing hollywood actors (good ones which they are a few of) over mostly classically trained actors?

However you misunderstand me if you think that its purely the actors I'm talking about. The way Hollywood makes movies often destroyes them.

At the end of the day its Rowling's choice, and as HP is in many ways very British, its probably best that British actors were used, although they did have to comprimise and aim the films at teeny little children.

Coonskin 13

While Emma my be a good actress, she is a horible Hermione. She looks nothing like the role. And when I said LOTR was better I meant the books and the movies.

Rapscallion

Originally posted by exanda kane
Choosing hollywood actors (good ones which they are a few of) over mostly classically trained actors?

However you misunderstand me if you think that its purely the actors I'm talking about. The way Hollywood makes movies often destroyes them.

At the end of the day its Rowling's choice, and as HP is in many ways very British, its probably best that British actors were used, although they did have to comprimise and aim the films at teeny little children.

At the end of the day it's Rowling's involvement that made for such mediocre films. Harry Potter is an international book and should have the best personel working on it regardless of nationality. I would assume that most of the time the best actors for the roles would be british, but that shouldn't be the definitive ctiteria during the casting process. Why not focus in on things like, whether or not they have talent?

as for other movie makers excluding the actors who aren't British, well, I can think of several directors and cinematographers who would be better apt for the project. Spielberg I heard was originally rumored to do it, but either he didn't want to or he expressed intrest, and they refused. Tim Burton would also be good. Janusz Kaminski, Andrew Lesnie, and conrad L Hall would all have been good. As for writers, I think Ted Eliot and Terry Rossio could have done much better.

charleestokie

exandra kane - your bang on. Harry Potter's english! yuk just imagine if it was american!

sammii

yep jk rowling is english she has wrote the books from an english perspective , therefore the films actors should be english xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxx

exanda kane

At the end of the day it's Rowling's involvement that made for such mediocre films. Harry Potter is an international book and should have the best personel working on it regardless of nationality. I would assume that most of the time the best actors for the roles would be british, but that shouldn't be the definitive ctiteria during the casting process. Why not focus in on things like, whether or not they have talent?

I disagree and agree with you there. In all honesty, the HP books would never make a great film script, theres too much going on inside Harry's head, the little mentionings of various goings-on around Hogwarts that could never be conveyed into a medicore script.

Although, yes the book is for everyone internationally to enjoy, the way in which it is written is very British, the whimsical humour, the characters and many of the references (although that may be obvious). The only way you could transform that into a film would be to use a mostly British porduction team or people who understand British humour to the extent that would be needed. I believe it's the previous efforts' aim to make HP more universal that has caused it to be such a disappointment (althought not financially), they should have stuck to trying to cater for a British audience instead and maybe it would have elavated itself as something different.

as for other movie makers excluding the actors who aren't British, well, I can think of several directors and cinematographers who would be better apt for the project. Spielberg I heard was originally rumored to do it, but either he didn't want to or he expressed intrest, and they refused. Tim Burton would also be good. Janusz Kaminski, Andrew Lesnie, and conrad L Hall would all have been good. As for writers, I think Ted Eliot and Terry Rossio could have done much better.

As said before, you need someone to understand the way the books are, although some mentioned would have probably done a better job. That being said some of the idiots might have moved Hogwarts to America and had harry as an annoying lil' american kid. it's been done before (War Of the Worlds)...

Rapscallion

Originally posted by charleestokie
exandra kane - your bang on. Harry Potter's english! yuk just imagine if it was american!

Isn't Waner Bros. an american company?
And The director of the first 2 was american. Guess that's why they were bad. Wow. I just prove your point while trying to prove mine. Hly crap I feel slightly retarded. I Apologize for arguing, although the director of the third one wasn't british either and that was the best one. I think I need to reevaluate my opinion confused

Rapscallion

Originally posted by exanda kane
At the end of the day it's Rowling's involvement that made for such mediocre films. Harry Potter is an international book and should have the best personel working on it regardless of nationality. I would assume that most of the time the best actors for the roles would be british, but that shouldn't be the definitive ctiteria during the casting process. Why not focus in on things like, whether or not they have talent?

I disagree and agree with you there. In all honesty, the HP books would never make a great film script, theres too much going on inside Harry's head, the little mentionings of various goings-on around Hogwarts that could never be conveyed into a medicore script.

Although, yes the book is for everyone internationally to enjoy, the way in which it is written is very British, the whimsical humour, the characters and many of the references (although that may be obvious). The only way you could transform that into a film would be to use a mostly British porduction team or people who understand British humour to the extent that would be needed. I believe it's the previous efforts' aim to make HP more universal that has caused it to be such a disappointment (althought not financially), they should have stuck to trying to cater for a British audience instead and maybe it would have elavated itself as something different.

as for other movie makers excluding the actors who aren't British, well, I can think of several directors and cinematographers who would be better apt for the project. Spielberg I heard was originally rumored to do it, but either he didn't want to or he expressed intrest, and they refused. Tim Burton would also be good. Janusz Kaminski, Andrew Lesnie, and conrad L Hall would all have been good. As for writers, I think Ted Eliot and Terry Rossio could have done much better.

As said before, you need someone to understand the way the books are, although some mentioned would have probably done a better job. That being said some of the idiots might have moved Hogwarts to America and had harry as an annoying lil' american kid. it's been done before (War Of the Worlds)...

Great post! You've almost changed my mind. I agree that the books have that typical british whimsy, and perhaps using British actors would be the best way to capture that. However, I still think that casting actors and other positions of all nationalities. I'm not saying they should have a tolken american or anything, just keep an open mind and cast whoever is best and not let nationality dictate too much one's decision.n It is also clear that they are extremely difficult books to bring to film. I think I'm just hard on them because I love th books so much.

sammii

mint i agree aswell

exanda kane

Originally posted by Rapscallion
Isn't Waner Bros. an american company?
And The director of the first 2 was american. Guess that's why they were bad. Wow. I just prove your point while trying to prove mine. Hly crap I feel slightly retarded. I Apologize for arguing, although the director of the third one wasn't british either and that was the best one. I think I need to reevaluate my opinion confused

No, dont apoligize, your opinion is valued. There are great American directors (usually the very best) everywhere but sometimes that cant handle things the same way some one else can. Different cultures etc.
HP just needs to be handled with care.

And I agree with you about the director of the 3rd one (Cuaro or something like that), he done it very well.

#1Rupert_Lover

Originally posted by Rapscallion
I disagree. While I thought Dan was pretty bad in the first two, I think he's made enormous strides as an actor and really came into his own in the third movie. He also has a much more challenging role than rupert does. He has to tackle some serious emotional scenes. He doesm't always do them very well, but given his age, he's more than decent. Rupert on the other hand has a very fluffy, thin role (I put the blame on the writers for this) and doesn't have the opportunity to show all his ability. That said, he seems to be having enough trouble with the simple role of the sidekick and comic relief. He usually onlyhas one facial expression per film. in the first it was confusion. In the second, it was fear, in the third he didn't have any wich was an improvement because he was less noticable and therefor less anoying. In the fourth, he pouted all the time. I know he doesn't have very strong material to work with, but he could do much better.

Um, what? And how many expressions does Dan have? from what I found, practically one, and I don't mean in each film. Rupert has a variety of different expressions. and at least you're able to tell what Ron was probably thinking and feeling by his expression.

but I had a hard time, along with the people I was seeing the movie with, trying to figure out what Harry was thinking or feeling. for example, that scene in the maze when Harry was deciding whether he should save cedric or not, he had no expression. he just looked back and forth, when he should've at least looked like he was struggling on what he should do. Instead, he looked expressionless. But in the scene when Harry's name came out of the Goblet, they had a closeup on Ron, and you could tell he was angry. He also did an excellent job in the argument between Ron and Hermione, Rupert did, in my opinion, a great job acting jealous with his expression and his voice.

and since Ron was supposed to be moody in this film, it made sense that he'd be moody through most of it. and I don't remember him having one expression throughout each film. And I watched the other films fairly recently. I remember a variety of expressions. Dan might have a more challenging role, but he doesn't seem to live up to it, in my opinion. now don't get me wrong, Dan's an okay actor. but there are a lot of points he doesn't do so well.

sammii

mint , oh i love a good debate

Rapscallion

It's true that you can tell what Ron is thinking and feeleing, but anyone can show what emotion they are feeling if they play their character like a chracature (sp?) All you have to do is either scowl real big, or smile really wide, or sob real loud. Great actors, show you not only what they are feeling, but why they are feeling it. Obviously, the reason for their emotion should be shown through the script and director, but the actors performance should convey an accurate reflection of what is going on around them so that if you saw only the actor's face, or heard their voice, you could still at least guess as to the situation they are in. This is a lot to ask of such a young actor, but he shows very little attention to detail that is required in what could have been a very strong role. For example, a groan let out upon hearing you have a pop quiz is very different from a groan let out upon being stabbed. A scream while riding a roller coaster is different, from a scream while witnessing a violent crime. And an insult traded between friends should be different from one exchanged between enemies.

sammii

lol .....................Harry potter is so much better than Narnia because ..........it is

charleestokie

HP rocks my socks. So suck it all you Narnia Freaks.

HP is a revoloution :P ner ner!!

sammii

here here !!!!!

harrypotterrocs

narnai is a very good film and i recon its a close 2nd to the hp films but no books can possibly be anywere near as good as the hp books!

www.powerpets.com/signup.asp?rfID=538494
use the links to sign up to powerpets the best free gaming site in the world!

sammii

i totally agree i never used to read books now harrypotter,s here its the best set of books ive ever read !!!

gshkris7272

i have to say Hp cause theres more and theres only one Narnia.

exanda kane

No, the Chronicles Of narnia do not suck as a whole. The movie was bad but it was probably better than the first and second HP movies put together.

And in its time, Narnia was revoulution. A quiet one albeit, but it had much more dignity than the HP franchise has ever had.

And LotR and other works by Tolkien beat them all, I'm afraid to say; better books, better films...

sammii

fair enough you have your opinion & i (and any one else that agrees with me)....Harry potter is by far the best & why ppl think the 2nd & 1st films were rubbish i dont no but i think there all mint .....

gshkris7272

i dont think they were THAT bad but the actors were so new to it that they werent experienced, but they did good for there first time.

sammii

mint , i agree not 4getting they were quite young them selves ,

#1Rupert_Lover

Originally posted by Rapscallion
It's true that you can tell what Ron is thinking and feeleing, but anyone can show what emotion they are feeling if they play their character like a chracature (sp?) All you have to do is either scowl real big, or smile really wide, or sob real loud. Great actors, show you not only what they are feeling, but why they are feeling it. Obviously, the reason for their emotion should be shown through the script and director, but the actors performance should convey an accurate reflection of what is going on around them so that if you saw only the actor's face, or heard their voice, you could still at least guess as to the situation they are in. This is a lot to ask of such a young actor, but he shows very little attention to detail that is required in what could have been a very strong role. For example, a groan let out upon hearing you have a pop quiz is very different from a groan let out upon being stabbed. A scream while riding a roller coaster is different, from a scream while witnessing a violent crime. And an insult traded between friends should be different from one exchanged between enemies.

Yes, but Dan didn't really show any of that. sure he sobbed, but he didn't look that upset. And I also didn't see any tears. sweat, yeah, but not tears. And If you're going to use an expression on your face, you'd need to show it in your voice too, and Dan didn't. he looked happy when he sounded sad. Rupert, on the other hand, had the expression and the voice for sounding happy or upset. And I don't know about you, but the people I asked said that they understood why Ron would be upset, including people who've never read the book. now could we please drop the subject. this is about Harry Potter vs. Narnia, not who's the better actor, but that's my opinion.

sammii

good point & i agree with you Dan is not really good at showing his emotions like in the poa in hogsmede when he first learns sirius betrayed his father ,when hes on that rock & he,s saying "im gonna find him & when i do im gonna kill him" that sceen was totally rubbish

#1Rupert_Lover

Originally posted by sammii
good point & i agree with you Dan is not really good at showing his emotions like in the poa in hogsmede when he first learns sirius betrayed his father ,when hes on that rock & he,s saying "im gonna find him & when i do im gonna kill him" that sceen was totally rubbish

I definitely agree with you on that one. I was actually talking about that fairly recently to someone. It looked more like he was smiling even though he made himself sound like he was crying. that was really goofy. Well, at least Emma Watson knew how to act in that scene. she made it a little less ridiculous.

sammii

yeh emma,s brilliant & that snow made hogsmede look really pretty

#1Rupert_Lover

Yeah, Emma's a great actress. And that Yule Ball scene in the new one was brilliant. She and Rupert really knew how to make us feel for them. Emma did a great job at being upset and making us feel sorry for her character, And Rupert did a great job at being jealous. he even sounded upset about it and the argument was what I imagined it being like.

gshkris7272

Originally posted by sammii
mint , i agree not 4getting they were quite young them selves ,

yeah..

exanda kane

Narnia is a classic. Harry potter isnt...yet.

And all the films with exception of certain bits from GoF and PoA were terrible.

sammii

narnia was made well before harry potter

#1Rupert_Lover

Yeah, the writer of Narnia was friends' with JRR Tolkien, so that should prove you right.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Narnia is a classic. Harry potter isnt...yet.

And all the films with exception of certain bits from GoF and PoA were terrible.

I hope you mean the Narnia book was a classic. Because the movie isn't, especially for the fact that it just came out. But I personally like the Harry Potter movies. True, I've gotten older, and I now see how much the first couple of movies are geared towards children, but I still like it, because it brings back memories of how excited I was about seeing it. Not to mention that Sorceror's Stone was pretty much the first movie I ever saw that was close to three hours that I didn't sleep through. It just isn't the same with the Narnia movie. They sort of tried too hard to make the Narnia movie a LOTR for kids.

DanielLB

Narnia is way better than any HP film!

DarkC

Originally posted by exanda kane
Don't overhype the HP movies though, they have got alot better but the first two were horribly rubbish.

WTF, how? In the first two, the movies seemed like the script WAS the book itself. To an extent.

The third did stick to the plot, but it wasn't nearly as interesting. The image of them wearing street clothes did not make the movie look real.

And the fourth? They left out a shitload.

exanda kane

Originally posted by #1Rupert_Lover
I hope you mean the Narnia book was a classic. Because the movie isn't, especially for the fact that it just came out. But I personally like the Harry Potter movies. True, I've gotten older, and I now see how much the first couple of movies are geared towards children, but I still like it, because it brings back memories of how excited I was about seeing it. Not to mention that Sorceror's Stone was pretty much the first movie I ever saw that was close to three hours that I didn't sleep through. It just isn't the same with the Narnia movie. They sort of tried too hard to make the Narnia movie a LOTR for kids.

Please read my posts and you will see that isnt the case and, although yes the films have grown a little bit, they are still rejecting a lot of potential brilliance by keeping the script small child friendly.

If it says you live in Britain...then why did you say the Sorcerer's Stone?
Weird... confused

And to Dark C, HP books do not make good scripts, I would have thought that would have been self evident. And I hope you would realise how hard it is to cram nigh on 900 pages into a 2 or 2 hours and a half movie. Making a film of the GoF while not missing out a lot of information is no mean feat.

sammii

potters well better

exanda kane

any reasons there or just because you havn't read Narnia?

sammii

yes i have my reasons , with harry potter there is something we can all relate to it has love,action,comedy ,..........and thogh both books/films are vety far-fetched there are still parts in harrypotter that are very much like real life

danagrint

Chronicles of Naria was much better, the special effects, nothing was cut out of the book and the actors were great (at least the girls didn't smile when they were crying) roll eyes (sarcastic)

specialangel

i liked them both but hp more

#1Rupert_Lover

Originally posted by specialangel
i liked them both but hp more

I agree, but I wouldn't say that Narnia had great effects. they were too Shrek-like in my opinion, which only works for the shrek movies because it's supposed to be that way. But the centaurs and Mr. Tumnus were a neat effect despite that. the animals, on the other hand, needed a little work on, with the exception of Aslan (Which they probably spent the most time on him, no doubt.) The story was interesting, but I prefer Mike Newell's vision of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire to Adam Adamson's vision of the Chronicles of Narnia, Despite the fact that Adam Adamson's vision is more closer to its book counterpart than Mike Newell's is to its own. after all, the books and movies are two different things. it doesn't matter how close to the books it is. Even the Lord of the Rings movies aren't as true to the books. as a matter of fact, they took out a lot, too. I read the books, so I know. and I had no problem with that either.

sammii

Originally posted by danagrint
(at least the girls didn't smile when they were crying) roll eyes (sarcastic)

btw what girls are you talking about

exanda kane

Originally posted by #1Rupert_Lover
I agree, but I wouldn't say that Narnia had great effects. they were too Shrek-like in my opinion, which only works for the shrek movies because it's supposed to be that way. But the centaurs and Mr. Tumnus were a neat effect despite that. the animals, on the other hand, needed a little work on, with the exception of Aslan (Which they probably spent the most time on him, no doubt.) The story was interesting, but I prefer Mike Newell's vision of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire to Adam Adamson's vision of the Chronicles of Narnia, Despite the fact that Adam Adamson's vision is more closer to its book counterpart than Mike Newell's is to its own. after all, the books and movies are two different things. it doesn't matter how close to the books it is. Even the Lord of the Rings movies aren't as true to the books. as a matter of fact, they took out a lot, too. I read the books, so I know. and I had no problem with that either.

True, Probably more was left out of LotR. Yet they are amazingly satisfying movies, where as HP and Narnia movies just lacked everything. But you can't make a great movie when you have characters blurting out there relatives at ultra fast pace...i.e.

'My name is Aragorn, Son of Arathorn, heir to the throne of Gondor and the lost kingdom of Arnor, Isildurs heir, Grandson of Aragorn the first etc etc etc....'

And sammii, they are exactly the same reasons why Narnia is loved, even more so.

#1Rupert_Lover

Originally posted by exanda kane
But you can't make a great movie when you have characters blurting out there relatives at ultra fast pace...i.e.

'My name is Aragorn, Son of Arathorn, heir to the throne of Gondor and the lost kingdom of Arnor, Isildurs heir, Grandson of Aragorn the first etc etc etc....'

True. That would be kind of funny if the characters did explain their whole history in the movie.

Rapscallion

Originally posted by #1Rupert_Lover
Yes, but Dan didn't really show any of that. sure he sobbed, but he didn't look that upset. And I also didn't see any tears. sweat, yeah, but not tears. And If you're going to use an expression on your face, you'd need to show it in your voice too, and Dan didn't. he looked happy when he sounded sad. Rupert, on the other hand, had the expression and the voice for sounding happy or upset. And I don't know about you, but the people I asked said that they understood why Ron would be upset, including people who've never read the book. now could we please drop the subject. this is about Harry Potter vs. Narnia, not who's the better actor, but that's my opinion.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I apologize. I didn't mean to hijack the subject.

Dan's better!!

#1Rupert_Lover

Originally posted by Rapscallion
I guess we have to agree to disagree. I apologize. I didn't mean to hijack the subject.

Dan's better!!

roll eyes (sarcastic)

exanda kane

Originally posted by #1Rupert_Lover
True. That would be kind of funny if the characters did explain their whole history in the movie.

It does have some comic value actuallly...

danagrint

alot was cut out of the harry potter movie, some people, and LOTS of scenes

Mr Watson

oh come on daniel radcliffe has ruined the movies!!!
he is a really really really horribly terrible actor!!!
NARNIA IS WAY BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr Watson

Originally posted by DanielLB
Narnia is way better than any HP film!

I AGREE WITH YOU!!!

#1Rupert_Lover

Originally posted by Mr Watson
oh come on daniel radcliffe has ruined the movies!!!
he is a really really really horribly terrible actor!!!
NARNIA IS WAY BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, but bad acting doesn't mean the movie's bad. I mean if you've ever seen any of the Spider-Man movies, Tobey Maguire's not the best actor, himself (Although he did kind'a look right for the part). But it was an enjoyable movie, in my opinion. Besides, the supporting actors in Harry Potter are good, so they make up for it.

Originally posted by danagrint
alot was cut out of the harry potter movie, some people, and LOTS of scenes

But the reason they don't show some people is because it probably wouldn't work well, and some characters weren't needed for a movie. And if you mean for the fact that they didn't have Dobby or Winky. Well there was really no point in having them, because some things don't work in the movie. And I personally think that the Goblet of Fire movie has its points where it's stronger than the book, and the book had it's strong points compared to the movie. like, for instance, I thought the fact that Neville Longbottom was the one who helped Harry with the gillyweed instead of Dobby was a better way of doing it, for it showed Neville's knowledge in Herbology. And I prefer the maze scene in the book than the one in the movie. so really, it's not about what scenes and characters they took out. It's about how well they get around it. most book-based movies do that.

Susan-Storm

Originally posted by Mr Watson
oh come on daniel radcliffe has ruined the movies!!!
he is a really really really horribly terrible actor!!!
NARNIA IS WAY BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I Agree..Dan does suck at acting..and to me he is ugly..this is ilike choosing your favorite sibling..it is extremly hard! I liked narnia better because it was a new film of an old book..and the hp series has been going on since 2001 and it is a film to see abut maybe 1-3 times in theaters.but note: harry potter is going to strech on longer then Narnia so give HP credit..it is a good movie!

#1Rupert_Lover

Originally posted by Susan-Storm
I Agree..Dan does suck at acting..and to me he is ugly..this is ilike choosing your favorite sibling..it is extremly hard! I liked narnia better because it was a new film of an old book..and the hp series has been going on since 2001 and it is a film to see abut maybe 1-3 times in theaters.but note: harry potter is going to strech on longer then Narnia so give HP credit..it is a good movie!
Agreed, S-S. rock

Mr Watson

ok so why am i at this harry potter forum if i think narnia is better?
meh im gonna go read the 7 narnia book agen good bye.

Mr Watson

ASLAN!

exanda kane

THREAD KILLER THREAD KILLER!

jedi sarah

narnia was a real disappointment.

harry potter 4 was real cool the best of the 4 i recon

Mr Watson

Originally posted by jedi sarah
narnia was a real disappointment.

harry potter 4 was real cool the best of the 4 i recon

u make me sick

Mr Watson

Originally posted by exanda kane
THREAD KILLER THREAD KILLER!

ok r u talkin 2 me?

exanda kane

does it really matter...

Barker

Originally posted by Mr Watson
ok so why am i at this harry potter forum if i think narnia is better?
meh im gonna go read the 7 narnia book agen good bye.
What the f**k?

Potter was the Better Flick, But then again, I haven't read the Narnia Books so.......

I'm Biased. stick out tongue

exanda kane

Both films (the majority in HP's case) were bad. The only thing that can seperate them is opinion of lil' teeny HP fans ignorance of other literature.

That and the fact that The Goblet Of Fire was good, although purely because they've stopped trying to aim a dark story at the Mickey Mouse club.

bubbles33

harry potter, i just like it better, narnia was good 2 tho

#1Rupert_Lover

Originally posted by exanda kane
Both films (the majority in HP's case) were bad. The only thing that can seperate them is opinion of lil' teeny HP fans ignorance of other literature.

That and the fact that The Goblet Of Fire was good, although purely because they've stopped trying to aim a dark story at the Mickey Mouse club.

Actually, Narnia was probably pointed toward the mickey mouse club even more. after all, it is a Disney movie. big grin

But I'm not ignorant to other books, and I don't think most Harry Potter fans are. Because I've read plenty of other books besides Harry Potter, like LOTR and Eragon (Not sure if you guys heard of it, but it's a really interesting book.) but I tried reading Narnia a few times, when I found it lying around, and it never caught my interest.

jedi sarah

Originally posted by Mr Watson
u make me sick

i love the narnia series i have loved them ever since i was little, i just didn't like the movie it was like they tried ripping off lord of the rings but didn't quite pull it off it just didn't suit the style it needed another director

As for harry potter 4 it was a big book and they had to cut alot of it to make it work

Ryohope

Narnia was a very good film but i still prefer Harry Potter... (what kinda thread is this? blink

i'm sure everyone will vote for potter.... )

exanda kane

Reading other books like LotR and Eragon (yes i have read it; very good) doesn't really justify not being ignorant however. I suggest to anyone wanting to broaden there horizons more than just HP to make a leap into other genres.

It's a shame that most will likely vote for Harry potter, not on the basis that it is better but because there just HP mad.

Black&&White

I haven't seen Narnia, so I can't say. . .

. . .but Harry Potter's likely to win my vote, anyhow!

#1Rupert_Lover

Originally posted by exanda kane
Reading other books like LotR and Eragon (yes i have read it; very good) doesn't really justify not being ignorant however. I suggest to anyone wanting to broaden there horizons more than just HP to make a leap into other genres.

It's a shame that most will likely vote for Harry potter, not on the basis that it is better but because there just HP mad.

Hold on, Narnia isn't "another genre" it's pretty much the same genre as those other books, including Harry Potter. And I read other genres, too. I don't just read fantasy.

danagrint

I didn't vote for hp, I voted for narnia!

sammii

i think harry potter is way better than narnis but thats just my opinion smile

daeri

Saw the movies... and I can't vote, two totally different movies..

Princess Lyla

Okay, this is an easy one...GoF is a much more entertaining movie than Narnia because the movie's flow and pace are moving in constant speed. Narnia was way slow in the begining and even though I think it is a good movie and the books are really great too. The movie adaptation of Narnia falls short to the book. The Narnia movie runs at an incredibly slow pace at first culminating in a final battle that feels like it lasts a lousy five minutes or less.

And while HP and the GoF movie is good there is a lot of material that was left out of the movie. Whereas in Narnia there wasn't much material in it to justify such a long movie, to me much of it was a waste of good film. I don't know what you think...but since the two movies ARE placed in the same category I would have to say HP is the better film. Even with all it's slips and other bad stuff(like Dan Radcliffe's performance in Cedric's death which was really bad) it is still the superior film.

daeri

Originally posted by Princess Lyla
Okay, this is an easy one...GoF is a much more entertaining movie than Narnia because the movie's flow and pace are moving in constant speed. Narnia was way slow in the begining and even though I think it is a good movie and the books are really great too. The movie adaptation of Narnia falls short to the book. The Narnia movie runs at an incredibly slow pace at first culminating in a final battle that feels like it lasts a lousy five minutes or less.

And while HP and the GoF movie is good there is a lot of material that was left out of the movie. Whereas in Narnia there wasn't much material in it to justify such a long movie, to me much of it was a waste of good film. I don't know what you think...but since the two movies ARE placed in the same category I would have to say HP is the better film. Even with all it's slips and other bad stuff(like Dan Radcliffe's performance in Cedric's death which was really bad) it is still the superior film.

I agree with it... I really liked Narnia, but I had the feeling the story didn't really was finished, there was missing so much.. and I didn't even read the book yet, (Im gonna do that now... :P) I think Narnia could have been so much better.. and with Harry Potter, there isn't anything missing.. I know there are things missing, but the story in the movie doesn't suffer from it...

biggesthpfan

it depends on which are you talking about the books or the movies

i like the harry potter books and in fact i love them, but the chronices of narna book was childish and terribley written

but i like the chronicles of narnia movie more than i like the Gof
because i had more action than the gof, not that there wasn't any action scenes but there was more and it captured more suspense and what can i say i'm a drama person

and maybe i liked it more because in the gof movie had lot of stuff was cutt out, and i was really disappiontted in it, they could of done better and as much as i want to say i like it i can't lie to you guys

Best Movie-Chronicles of Narnia the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe (And the title is grammically incorrect is suppose to be Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe wink

Best Book-Harry Potter Goblet of Fire sad

Knightfall93

The Goblet of Fire sucked cock! They showed Harry finding Crouch in the forest, he runs up to DD and... its never mentioned again! Damn idiots...
Narnia is technically more of a classi etc and a better book but I prefer Potter

#1Rupert_Lover

I never understood why people would want a movie to be EXACTLY like a book. It wouldn't be fun if it was exactly like their counterparts. I'm tired of people saying that they destroyed the book, because that's not true. some things just wouldn't work in a movie, and as long as they hide it well, it's all right! And Harry Potter did that. If I never read the book, I'd understand it. because everyone I asked that saw it understood it and didn't even ask about it. When I told them that some moments were missing, they just said, "really?" because it was so well covered up. When I went to see Narnia, I was just confused at certain parts, because I never read the books.
Originally posted by biggesthpfan
but i like the chronicles of narnia movie more than i like the Gof
because i had more action than the gof, not that there wasn't any action scenes but there was more and it captured more suspense and what can i say i'm a drama person

More action in Narnia? No offense, but Harry Potter and Narnia both have the same amount of action. the only difference with the action is that in Harry Potter, they weren't afraid of showing blood and gore. In narnia, they didn't even show a little blood in the big battle scene. I mean, I know it's a kids movie, but so was the first Harry Potter, and even that one showed a little blood! and what was MORE suspenseful about it than Harry Potter? I wasn't freaking out at any of the scenes in Narnia. the only real suspense was the crucifixion scene with Aslan.
Originally posted by Knightfall93
The Goblet of Fire sucked cock! They showed Harry finding Crouch in the forest, he runs up to DD and... its never mentioned again! Damn idiots...

Why would you need to mention any more about that? people already got the picture that crouch was dead, and they learned the reason why with the pensieve. Not to mention if you looked at the scene before the death, you'll see Mad Eye doing that tongue thing. and when you see Barty Crouch Jr. do it in the pensieve, then you can make the connection that Moody had something to do with it.

Knightfall93

Why not show it again!?
" Oh, sir, by the way, I forgot, but last year I found a dead guy in the forest..." And the Narnia film was SO much better!

Knightfall93

Voldemort looked like general grievous! he's supposed to be SCARY not LAUGHABLE!

HermWeasley

HARRY POTTER
Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia are 2 totally different stories
i see no relation between them

Harry potter vs. Lord of The Ring
thats something u could compare about
between them to i still 4
HARRY POTTER! eek!

HermWeasley

I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS and...
well The Chronicles of Narnia was a bit better than THE GOBLET OF FIRE
but that's it.
sorry 2 the hp fans but GOF wasn't what i expected.

tigress

tough call very tough call both are equally fantastic in their own right I have to say though I'd love GoF to get more awards its about time they got more recognition for their hard work and dedication

#1Rupert_Lover

Originally posted by Knightfall93
Voldemort looked like general grievous! he's supposed to be SCARY not LAUGHABLE!

Voldemort looked nothing like General Grievous. yes, his nose looked more like slits, but he looked nothing like him. You can't really compare him to a droid that looks like he's wearing a helmet.

tigress

agrees totally

wicked banner btw

HermWeasley

Originally posted by Knightfall93
Voldemort looked like general grievous! he's supposed to be SCARY not LAUGHABLE!

So True! I gather all my friends (who are not h.p. fans)who had gather up some guys(who is as well didn't know anything about h.p.-besides this 1 dude-i swear i heard him say something only a h.p. fan would know)
well back 2 the topic. I was bragging them it will be great.How scary it would be because the book was.
Oh my god! At the end when Voldemort appeared. i swear everyone there laughed and made rude remarks.
I remeber one of them said he looked like he was high. Of balance and and all. So Laughable! laughing

and than my friends and my friend's friends complain how long it was.
i personally felt like i was there 4 2 mins.