Harry Potter

pettys upset because hp was actually filmed in scotland/oxford

Glad it wasn't filmed here.... would have had to introduced Potter to the rusty nail in the plank of wood that I am keeping for a special occasion.

pettys upset because hp was actually filmed in scotland- CC

Yup, almost as upset that it was so popular and made so much money yet to me seems so poor and deriviative- dont think I will ever understand that. Its like a chidlrens book equivelent to a 'best of' album, only without crediting all the artists.

harry potter books > lord of the rings books

If that > bit of text means you think HP is better than LotR's then I may have to become extremely crabbit!

If on the other hand it means the opposite then

choose wisely!

so jealous Lance, have you got photos?

you can releate to harry potter characters which is more than you can say about any lotr character

I thought I had debated that point to a conclusive victory already?!!

what? everyone knows i won

I am sure I was victorious, I remember that day, I was drunk.

I was never fond of that scene, not in the trailers and not in the finished movie. It felt too cheesy and staged and not genuine at all.

returning and scanning this thread after Petty said he had won the argument about character relatability. Where is it?

I've only posted once here, but here's my thoughts:

• I thought the first HP movie captured the sense of magic and kid wonderment perfectly. Can't understand why Eldo didn't like it.
• I agree with Figgy that Yates fucked things up going for darkness at the expense of wonder
• I large part I think the Potter characters are more relatable because they are in the more familiar context of school, feeling that you don't fit in, and young teenage crushes, etc. All of which are largely ignored in Tolkien. (We get brief glimpses of Pippin in Minas Tirith and Rosy and Sam; that's about it.) Only the hobbit characters are equally relatable in LoTR; the others including (paradoxically) men feel somewhat distant. Sorry Petty, once you get away from the Hobbits, HP wins.

It's been almost two years since I've watched any of the HP movies except the last one, but I don't hate the first two or anything. There are some absolutely fantastic moments -- Diagon Alley, the first glimpse of Hogwarts, and the Quidditch match among them -- that are among the best in the entire series. But beyond that, I dunno and my memories of the film are a little foggy, but it I think it felt a little too fluffy and inconsequential. That may have been a factor of the director: Chris Columbus, previously best known for Home Alone and Mrs Doubtfire.

To be fair, I was deeply unimpressed by Yates' contributions to the franchise. The only one of his films that I was satisfied with was DH1, though that was in part because I went in with my expectations set to rock-bottom after HBP. My feelings towards Yates' films have softened a little bit since then, but I'm still not a fan of them.

I'd really like to do another HP marathon this summer to see how my thoughts on the films have changed now that the series is complete, though.

I liked HP, but each one was a little worse then the previous.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:If that > bit of text means you think HP is better than LotR's then I may have to become extremely crabbit!

If on the other hand it means the opposite then

choose wisely!

didn't you take like.. math in school?! krokodiles mouth, it's greedy and bites on the biggest number, here HP.

the books are always better, i love like the three first movies, then it goes downhill because i can't remember anything about the fourth or fifth, the fifth sucked, everything i loved from the book was gone (the humour, Fred and George's inside pond or whatever... :C )

on the question of what is best. i think they're equally good, but on different areas. like, what's best.
this

or this?

btw when I said "once you get away from the hobbits, HP wins" I was referring only to character relatability. HP is a great bit of writing, but not great literature. It doesn't go as deep, make you think as much.

i disagree, you can go deep on HP.

I think LOTR is more epic but its not necesarily deeper emotionally. with HP as Halfy said its instantly part of our modern world with issues like death of parents abandonment and loss, the loyalty of friends and overcoming difficultiies of life all are satisfying to read because we have all experienced at least some of these things, whether its being bullied at school like Harry, feeling like a loser or an outsider like Neville, Young love, fighting for the things that matter, its deep shit. LOTR is on a grand sweeping stage with epic heros and villains, only the Hobbits are anything like real people and thats who we can root for, but the villains and issues the Hobbits have to face, like all out war are out of our experience unless you lived through the 2WW like Tolkien did. we can only imagine their world not actually live it.

well said, totally agree.

It's interesting to try to figure out where the dividing line between literature and good writing lays. Any criterion I can come up with seems to be violated by some accepted piece of literature. I feel HP will never quite make the cut of literature, always being considered good enjoyable writing such as King Solomon's Mines. But where that intangible line is drawn I cannot say. I'd say that She by the same writer as King Solomon's mines may come closer to being considered literature, if only because it feels deeper. Yet many books about every day things also make the cut (the whole of Jane Austen). It's rather bewildering to not be able to say why.

I've never understood the reason for or importance of setting "literature" apart from other books/stories/poems. It reminds me of people who quibble over whether certain films are entertainment or art. It all feels very arbitrary to me.