Originally posted by exanda kane
Harry Potter films have been pathetic so far with the exception of Book 4: Goblet Of Fire.The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe was a major disappointment. It just lacked a lot. The Goblet Of Fire is a much better film.
As for books, strangely I'd say harry potter is a little bit better, although the last couple of books arent as good as there predecessors.
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.
i guess exanda is british then, lol. im american. haha 😄
I'd have to go with HP, definitely. Narnia was good for what it was. It was good for a kids movie. But it just doesn't beat Harry Potter. I never read the Narnia books, so I don't know about that. I've read Harry Potter many times, and it's one of my favorite book series. My dad said Narnia was pretty true to its book, but in my opinion, it doesn't matter how true to the books it is, as long as it has a few elements from the books and is well made. And I think Harry Potter fits into that category.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 😄
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.
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! 😠
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.
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.
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.