Compare the Harry Potter films just to the first Star Wars trilogy.

Started by quanchi11210 pages

Compare the Harry Potter films just to the first Star Wars trilogy.

Which series is better and why? No Fb, no prequels, and no Disney Star Wars.

OT

/thread

Originally posted by steverules_2
OT

/thread

Reasons why. What did you like better?

Originally posted by quanchi112
Reasons why. What did you like better?

I do like the Harry Potter films, but I just find the rewatch value of Star Wars better. I prefer the story, the acting, and the I loved all the characters. Love the old effects of the films also whats lefts anyway. I loved the lightsabre fights between Luke and Vader. Nothing for me in Harry Pottter beats ESB, love that film but overall I prefer Star Wars to potterverse.

Originally posted by steverules_2
I do like the Harry Potter films, but I just find the rewatch value of Star Wars better. I prefer the story, the acting, and the I loved all the characters. Love the old effects of the films also whats lefts anyway. I loved the lightsabre fights between Luke and Vader. Nothing for me in Harry Pottter beats ESB, love that film but overall I prefer Star Wars to potterverse.
Ok, as much as I personally disagree I can respect that you gave me the reasons why you prefer Star Wars more.

Ps. I think the cinematic universe is the Wizarding World now. Easier than typing out Potterverse imo.

OT. No question.

I'd probably take the HP books over the OT though.

Originally posted by ares834
OT. No question.

I'd probably take the HP books over the OT though.

Why?

OT/Thread.

WHY YOU ASK?

Because they are Better in both Story and character development. That and Star Wars wasn't aimed at Widdle Kids like the Harry Potter Series. I don't like Widdle Kid Shit.

This is just a Poorly Hidden Spite Thread anyway.

OT hands down.

Superior Relationships, cliffhangers, surprises, emotional resonance, love story, range of characters, villains, heroes, action, imagination and overall storytelling.

Plus I always found HP just a little more kiddish.

Its great though a new 21st century generation had their own long lasting fantasy franchise. I know there was LOTR as well, but that feels to me like it was more of a short term thing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2017/4/13/15288998/george-lucas-star-wars-celebration

George Lucas reiterates Star Wars is for 12-year-olds, calls out mean critics

And harry potter is for 6 Year olds.

Totally called this a a "Poorly Hidden Spite Thread"

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]And harry potter is for 6 Year olds.

Totally called this a a "Poorly Hidden Spite Thread" [/B]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1
PG-13 2010 ‧ Fantasy/Fantasy ‧ 2h 26m

Voldemort is so much more evil than the pussified Vader or Sidious. Attacking a baby is hardly ever covered in film and the later tone of the films is much darker than anything in the Ot by leaps and bounds.

13>12. Potter wins.

Young Anakin Choked his Pregnant Wife to Death, and She was carrying TWINS... So that makes VADER Twice as Evil!!!!!!!!!!!

She lived. You did not even watch the film. Kenobi ordered him to stop and the little crybaby listened. Star Wars was for kids so try to not be so disgustingly ignorant from now on. You are so bereft of anything resembling an awareness of reality it is kind of scary.

Anakin murdered who knows how many younglings/padawans. The Empire slaughtered millions at least.

As for the question. OT easily. I like HP but most of the movies are forgettable and characters/story/impact of Star Wars is more impressive

Originally posted by WolvesofBabylon
Anakin murdered who knows how many younglings/padawans. The Empire slaughtered millions at least.

As for the question. OT easily. I like HP but most of the movies are forgettable and characters/story/impact of Star Wars is more impressive

No babies though. No infants were killed. Anakin got very upset and killed kids but he made no attempts on any infants. In war many die but to make a central point of the film about the antagonist trying to kill a baby really focuses on how irredeemable he is.

Groundbreaking sure due to the time period Star Wars came out but that is not the discussion. Harry Potter has forged its own place in pop culture across the globe in a far more competitive time.

We have far more character development in the Harry Potter series that Star Wars due to more screen time, character growth, and more perilous situations for the cast to evelve through. That is not even disputable either.

The Snape questions (which side is he on) and tragedy of his fate is something Star Wars cannot even remotely even come within close proximity. None of the good guys even die in the Ot. It is a really happy ending with the bad guy redeeming himself and his overlord killed in a truly kiddy ending.

When Potter ends you see how many of the heroes died and the ramifications. The characters are still reeling from the losses whereas Star Wars is pure celebration because the bad guys have been defeated. Luke even gets to see his father join the fallen Jedi to make it even feel sweeter.

Potter ironically ended up dealing with far more mature themes at the end than Star Wars. That is why I truly laugh at the fanboys who hide behind the kiddy argument when Star Wars is far more childlike at the end of the day.

Potter. Hands down. Superior in every single fathomable way.

Anakin killed Sand People Infants in ATOC when he slaughtered that village when his mom died. He Killed Every last One of them. So there is that.

And No Nose Tried to Kill Baby Harry....and got his Butt kicked. SO there is that...

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Anakin killed Sand People Infants in ATOC when he slaughtered that village when his mom died. He Killed Every last One of them. So there is that.

And No Nose Tried to Kill Baby Harry....and got his Butt kicked. SO there is that... [/B]

Tgis is the Ot you moron. Who cares if he killed people who held his mom captive. She died. Reread the op you mental moron.

Voldemort is far more evil than any pretender from the Ot. As I said far more mature themes than fdabcing with Ewoks at the end of the film. 😂

I thoroughly enjoy destroying fanboys and morons like fly.

Your arguments are pitiful.

The fact that Vader turned out to be not only a former Jedi, but Luke's Father, made him a far more compelling villain. Like infinitely more.

There's a reason why "I AM YOUR FATHER" is one of the most iconic lines in cinema history. Voldemort really doesn't compare.

If you want someone just pure evil with no redeemable qualities, then the OT gave us The Emperor.

There's really no comparison on the villain side of things. The OT has the HP series beat by miles.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
The fact that Vader turned out to be not only a former Jedi, but Luke's Father, made him a far more compelling villain. Like infinitely more.

There's a reason why "I AM YOUR FATHER" is one of the most iconic lines in cinema history. Voldemort really doesn't compare.

If you want someone just pure evil with no redeemable qualities, then the OT gave us The Emperor.

There's really no comparison on the villain side of things. The OT has the HP series beat by miles.

No, it made him redeemable. He redeemed himself like a truly conflicted weak villain. There was nothing in Voldemort to redeem. He rejected his humanity entirely and was far more evil than lukewarm Vader.

Due to the time it came out but that does not make it better. The films pale in comparison acting wise to Potter. It is not even close. In the first film the acting is atrocious and while it gets better is nowhere close to Potter quality.

The emperor was just a guy who showed up at the end with no real backstory. You can pretend they delved inti him but they did not. A 2d guy.

No, it is not close and Potter is by far meant for an older audience than Star Wars and the 12 years Lucas designed it for.

Voldemort>Sidious or Vader. Not even close.