The Harry Potter movies and the Lord of the Rings movies both kicked off in Fall of 2001.
The Harry Potter movies, with one or two exceptions, are thoroughly mediocre.
The Lord of the Rings movies are masterpieces.
What went wrong, and what went right?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
the source material
One has virtuous, artistic source material, the other is babbys first wizard sk00l.
One's source is actually good, and the other's is trash.
target audience
The Lord of the Rings aren't as great as you remember them, re-watch the trilogy sometime. Only Fellowship could be described as a "masterpiece"
What went wrong was that they decided to make a movie from one of the dullest franchises in history. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.
Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.
>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."
I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.
While Peter Jackson's adaptation is by no means perfect, it has one critical advantage, that it is not part of one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.
Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.
>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."
I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.
One is satanistic the other don't
Harry Potter is barely fantasy. It has magic and all, sure, but the setting is sterile. The story is way too harry potter centric to be interesting. The world doesn't feel alive, it feels like nothing important ever happens or happened outside of Harry's special-snowflake moments. The setting has no structure or rules, because muh-magic. There is no immersion, as you have no footing in the world, there is no telling what will happen next, everything is flavorless.
The Incarnations of immortality books, by Piers Anthony, have a lot more fun with the concept of a magical reality.
The books are a little hit or miss, and by the last two books it turn into magical and sexually liberated teen girls solve all their problems by fucking.
Bearing an Hourglass was my favorite, the whole book is basically a dude becoming the incarnation of time, and figuring out how temporal mechanics work.
If you enjoy some fun genre trash light reading they're worth checking out.
>The Lord of the Rings movies are masterpieces.
Masterpieces at being overrated, maybe. Harry Potter is shit though, I don't know how those books got so popular, and the movies are a slight step up, mediocre fantasy popcorn flicks.
Its weird when you think of it.
Did the first movie came out around the same time as the first book? I think the hype for the books really picked up after the movie, kinda like ASOIAF books that no one was reading before GoT.
how can one person be so wrong
Consistency.
LoTR is actually a single story divided on 3 parts. It doesn't change tone or aesthetics and tries to be as much accurate to the source material as possible.
> INB4 no Tom Bombadil
> INB4 Legolas shield surfing
> INB4 no songs
> INB4 no 54 year old hobbits on the quest
Okay, okay... a few mishaps to appeal to wider audiences. Seriously reading LoTR is not for everyone and a movie with that budget needs to appeal to a lot of people and there is no harm in making battles more dynamic and making the cast a tad younger.
Not to mention that LoTR is inspired by norse mythology which it's off course the superior mythology.
Meanwhile HP changed artistic visions more than once and it changed with time to cater to it's current audience. First two movies where for kids, third and fourth movies where for children entering puberty and from fifth onward they just went with was what popular among the same fan base, namely twilight.
Not to mention they changed genres and disregarded the plot for the sake of keeping the cast. That's a decision LOTR didn't have to make but HP did... and they choose poorly.
how can anyone defend return of the king after the cgi shitfest that was the army of ghosts ...
fpbp
>What went wrong, and what went right?
No explanation of the tax policy.
>making the cast a tad younger.
Are the hobbits supposed to look old? I know Frodo is like 50 when he leaves, but I think hobbit still look youthful at that age. Aren't they considered adult only at 30 or something?
Yes, they are not supposed to look old but they are so they should act a little older even if they look younger.
Still, no harm done by making them act more like childish. No one was gonna watch a road trip trilogy about 50 year old hobbits...
>The Incarnations of immortality
I love you, user
>try to read lotr books
>it's all singing and shit
thats where you are wrong kiddo
...
>Are the hobbits supposed to look old?
They are supposed to be tubby little fucks. Maybe its because I grew up on the Rankin/Bass cartoons, but they always informed my imagination on what the hobbits looked like.
Not that I have a problem with how they're portrayed in the movie or anything. But it's always been a little thing that bugs me.
literally the best part yo fucking peasant
Fucking this.
The world was young, the mountains green,
No stain yet on the Moon was seen,
No words were laid on stream or stone
When Durin woke and walked alone.
He named the nameless hills and dells;
He drank from yet untasted wells;
He stooped and looked in Mirrormere,
And saw a crown of stars appear,
As gems upon a silver thread,
Above the shadow of his head.
The world was fair, the mountains tall,
In Elder Days before the fall
Of mighty kings in Nargothrond
And Gondolin, who now beyond
The Western Seas have passed away:
The world was fair in Durin's Day.
A king he was on carven throne
In many-pillared halls of stone
With golden roof and silver floor,
And runes of power upon the door.
The light of sun and star and moon
In shining lamps of crystal hewn
Undimmed by cloud or shade of night
There shone for ever fair and bright.
There hammer on the anvil smote,
There chisel clove, and graver wrote;
There forged was blade, and bound was hilt;
The delver mined, the mason built.
There beryl, pearl, and opal pale,
And metal wrought like fishes' mail,
Buckler and corslet, axe and sword,
And shining spears were laid in hoard.
Unwearied then were Durin's folk;
Beneath the mountains music woke:
The harpers harped, the minstrels sang,
And at the gates the trumpets rang.
The world is grey, the mountains old,
The forge's fire is ashen-cold;
No harp is wrung, no hammer falls:
The darkness dwells in Durin's halls;
The shadow lies upon his tomb
In Moria, in Khazad-dûm.
But still the sunken stars appear
In dark and windless Mirrormere;
There lies his crown in water deep,
Till Durin wakes again from sleep.
Just rewatch Return of the King and you'll see all of the early signs of Hobbit-era Hackson
>10/10
1. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Jackson, 2001)
>9/10
>8/10
2. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (Jackson, 2003)
3. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (Yates, 2011)
>7/10
4. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (Jackson, 2002)
5. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (Yates, 2016)
6. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Columbus, 2001)
7. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Newell, 2005)
>6/10
8. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Cuaron, 2004)
9. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (Jackson, 2013)
10. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Yates, 2009)
11. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (Yates, 2010)
>5/10
12. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Jackson, 2012)
13. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Yates, 2007)
>4/10
14. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Columbus, 2002)
15. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (Jackson, 2014)
>3/10
>2/10
>1/10
>0/10
Really makes you think.
The only reason Lord of the Rings films are viewed so highly is because apart from The Ten Commandments there is no other great fantasy epic and quite frankly they are emotionally manipulative for normans
Harry Potter is still dogshit though
LOTR is for nu-males
Harry Potter is for weebs that are now probably watching Little Reddit Academia too
That's actually true. In fact, the LotR movies are fairly overrated as a whole, but Fellowship is definitely the best.
Totally forgot about this. Thanks brot.
why wasn't Harry Potter good after the first few?
>Richard Harris died
>no more Columbus
>David Yates
i'm a hardened Sup Forums user, what should i enjoy?
why do you autists pretend to enjoy this?
Motherfucking Beastmaster
lol looks like donald drumpf fan art
Fuck, I can't unsee that now. Thanks for ruining one of my favorite fantasy movies of all time. I should have known better.
Star Wars
This is true, Two Towers especially is overrated. First half is great, up to where Theoden and Gandalf are at the buriel mounds. After that Two Towers turns to absolute shit. Return of the King is alright, but suffers because of changes in Two Towers affected how it flowed and what scenes gave it gravitas.
Fellowship is solid all the way through, its only real issue is a flaky sense of timescale for the first half. Changes from the source were decent for the format; Bombadil wasn't necessary for the story (only worldbuilding), and replacing Glorfindel with Arwen was fine as Arwen was going to be Aragorn's love interest anyway so it gave her more reason to be a character. The second half of Fellowship is great all-around.
this
Two Towers is my personal 10/10
Nah. They're fine. And even better as the extended cuts.
Bombadil was needed to properly explain how merry could hurt twk
the movies butchered Faramir, fuck them
I agree. Without the Sam and Frodo scenes, Two Towers and RotK wouldn't be any better than the hobbit movies
Like clockwork.
/thread
Why is
>"No!"
In quotations?
I dunno man. I don't recall the books ever giving me the gay vibes that the movies did. Sam and Frodo were miscast as fuck and they're "chemistry" was overly forced.
They're the only characters with development.
Harry Potter is a cautionary tale of a liberal run world. Extreme vetting would have stopped Voldemort before he even happened.
Lord of the Rings is a tale of staunch patriots for their homeland willing to lay their lives on the line to protect their way of life.
Essentially this.
There's a reason Tolkien has become the gold-standard for Western fanasy.
>not liking the battle of Helm's Deep
>not liking the parts in Rohan's capital
In the books yeah, not in the films.
They really didn't sell it beyond I want your penis in my anus but this is a film for kids so we better just be homoerotically close.
LOTR was a masterpiece of cinema through and through, from the choreography and writing to the CGI. Harry Potter is childish nonsense made to turn a profit from a franchise, with no love or passion from the filmmakers. Just compare these two scenes and note which is the more poignant, even though from their context it might seem obvious.
youtube.com
youtube.com