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.
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.
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.
__________________
Buds-MerMorgan02; AddictedToBoys
Last edited by #1Rupert_Lover on Jan 7th, 2006 at 03:49 AM
Gender: Female Location: And Why is It Important to you?
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!
KMC Community Forums
Jan 6th, 2006 12:17 AM
Attachment: 
