View Full Version : harry potter dvd
claremccutcheon
06-01-2002, 22:32
future entertainment have posted that they are now taking pre orders for harry potter which they say is going to be released on may 7 th 2002 great
potter rocks, altho, its far trendier in these forums to refer to Lord Of The Rings as a life changing experience........ its not...
but Potter rulllllllleeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssss
id like to raise the tone by inviting harry potter to suck my balls :D
Spudlington
07-01-2002, 01:14
dude, have some decorum.
I'd like to cordially invite harry potter to suck my balls
bravo. i consider my wrists slapped :)
Originally posted by tezmo
bravo. i consider my wrists slapped :)
Only your wrists?
:D
yea thats the strange attitude i was referring to,
well hows bout this..... Lord Of The Rings is a very very overhyped film, as good as jacksons direction and shots are.... the story isn't that brilliant, and hell you geeks can keep quoting that 'it was voted best book of the millennium' until your heads fall off (now i would pay to see that) but the fact is Lord of the Rings isn't the greatest story ever told and no matter how polished a production Jacksons film is, there is no escaping this basic and essential fact.
Harry Potter is a fantastic story and the books get better, Columbus did a great job translating it, its class.
of course if all you can do when retorting to this is say 'harry potter blows' then that really says a great deal about the level of your intelligence.
dude, i wasnt commenting on the film, just the premise - havent even seen it - i didnt say "harry potter blows" as you incorrectly quoted, but you cant go stating things like "Lord Of The Rings as a life changing experience........ its not... ", and "Lord Of The Rings is a very very overhyped film" as fact when thats nothing more than your (apparently not-so-humble) opinion. "potter rocks" is in no way a convincing argument - admitedly neither is the "suck my balls part" but i was hardly reducing the standards of discussion.
We'll see which film is remembered in 20 years time - you see a film with a pre-teen target audience will never be historically revered, and harry potter falls into that category.
TheFatBoy
07-01-2002, 20:48
Originally posted by tezmo
see a film with a pre-teen target audience will never be historically revered, and harry potter falls into that category.
I thought Tolkien wrote LOTR for his kids? Or was that The Hobbit?
Originally posted by TheFatBoy
I thought Tolkien wrote LOTR for his kids? Or was that The Hobbit?
we're talking about films.
Chyna Tsui
07-01-2002, 20:57
Originally posted by TheFatBoy
I thought Tolkien wrote LOTR for his kids? Or was that The Hobbit?
Jesus, Tolkien must of hated his kids! That books about a foot thick!
TheFatBoy
07-01-2002, 21:02
Originally posted by tezmo
we're talking about films.
Thanks for pointing out the bleeding obvious. :D
Spudlington
07-01-2002, 21:42
right....
nashie, far be it for anybody to state an (admittedly - by them - peurile) opinion in an open forum about a character they appear to not to like..
and harry potter is class is a marvellous and eloquent appraisal of the film, and your comment which clearly demonstrates your higher intelligence is certainly more worthy of anybody's attention than harry potter blows . At least tezmo was just taking the wee wee. Unfortunately, I fear, you were serious.
anyway, who was talking about harry potter vs. lotr?
only you. sure tezmo was just ******* on the potter dude, but there's not much wrong with that, so long as it's not passed of as anything more than harmless banter, you appear to take issues regarding films entirely too seriously....
and thefatboy, it looks as though the bleeding obvious needed stating :D
anyway, harry potter blows goats
i have photos
--
i don't even HAVE an opinion
"you see a film with a pre-teen target audience will never be historically revered, and harry potter falls into that category."
I would take issue with your statement about the audience, pre teen.... I would have classified it as a family movie, there is a difference.
and as you should know there are a lot of family movies which are now considered classics.
when i said the thing bout LOTR as 'a life-changing experience' it was sarcasm, my point being that LOTR is overrated, it is very good, but just like how people go on and on about how good the matrix is it is just that a good film, not the masterpiece it ws said to be because i find the source material quite good, not the genius of literature people keep saying it is.
I think the fact that Rowling's Potter series has sold more books than any other author his year and are a publishing phenomenon are proof that they will stand the test of time as will the film.
we will see....
TheFatBoy
07-01-2002, 21:47
Originally posted by Spudlington
and thefatboy, it looks as though the bleeding obvious needed stating :D
You seem to have missed the sarcasm that my post was laced with. Next time I'll increase the dosage. :D
Spudlington
07-01-2002, 21:54
that would be cool... i need all the help i can get.. though go easy on me, I'm not at u.s. levels of missing sarcasm
SithLordSi
09-01-2002, 02:45
At the risk of going off topic even more, I have a couple of things to suggest to anyone participating in a 'Film A' versus 'Film B' discussion:
Your comments only reflect your own opinions, not everyone else's. When voicing your opinions strongly, don't expect anyone to change their's to agree with yours. Resorting to generalisation and mocking those with a different opinion both weaken your argument considerably. When condemning one statement, don't make the mistake of making a similar one yourself (for instance, saying "you geeks can keep quoting that 'it was voted best book of the millennium' until your heads fall off", and following that up with "the fact that Rowling's Potter series has sold more books than any other author his year and are a publishing phenomenon are proof that they will stand the test of time"). Do not take things too personally - this includes being able to read sarcasm and react in an according manner. If you go off topic in the SECOND POST, be prepared for the consequences. It is not trendy to bash a film due to popularity - if a film is popular, there is usually a good reason. It is equally un-trendy to point out knowingly what is trendy and what is not (see, self de-facing humour too! :D). Be prepared to accept arguments when strong evidence is staring you IN THE FACE. A book is not a film, and vice versa. A film is not made or broken by its ending, beginning or middle - rather, by the sum of its parts. A film's financial success is not always proof of its quality and durability. Comparing two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT films just because they are (a) released in the same year and (b) feature elements of a well known genre is pointless, as it proves nothing about either film in its own right. If one enjoys the most hyped film of the year more than any other film that year, regardless of any artistic merit in it, then the film in question has arguably lived up to its reputation in the eyes of that person. If anyone enjoys it less, this does not automatically make it a failure. Films often improve over time, especially those that are hyped upon initial release. If you make an argument, be prepared to back it up. If you can't, don't make it.
TheFatBoy
09-01-2002, 08:13
Yes sir, sorry sir. :p:D
SithLordSi
09-01-2002, 12:52
Damn, that felt good. I've always wanted to know what being a teacher was like. :D
George vader
09-01-2002, 16:39
Well I've just watched the first 90mins of Harry Potter and ,well, oh dear.
Like a over-hyped concoction of The Witches andMatilda !
Great if you're 14 but when you're 20 years older, a little, shall we say, tired.
Think I will go and see LOTR this weekend.
TheFatBoy
09-01-2002, 16:42
Originally posted by George vader
Well I've just watched the first 90mins of Harry Potter and ,well, oh dear.
Like a over-hyped concoction of The Witches andMatilda !
Great if you're 14 but when you're 20 years older, a little, shall we say, tired.
In your opinion - I personally thought it was a fun film that stayed very faithful to the book. A little long perhaps, but I don't see how they could have made it shorter without chopping chunks of storyline out (which they did anyway, to a certain degree!) :D
HighlanderTM
09-01-2002, 19:01
Chris Columbus originally shot a 4 hour version, but the studio went ape**** when they found out about it, saying that "No matter how much kids love the book, no way are they gonna sit in a theatre for four goddamn hours!"
Shows how much attention the executives paid when the script landed on thier desk. What did they do, get someone to read it for them and make notes?
ChrisAllenFiz
09-01-2002, 19:16
Originally posted by HighlanderTM
Chris Columbus originally shot a 4 hour version, but the studio went ape**** when they found out about it, saying that "No matter how much kids love the book, no way are they gonna sit in a theatre for four goddamn hours!"
Shows how much attention the executives paid when the script landed on thier desk. What did they do, get someone to read it for them and make notes?
Ah the harry potter vs LOTR chestnut. Spice is added to the mix by whether you have/haven`t seen either of the films and/or have/haven`t read either of the books. Thus making it ridiculously hard to provide an overall opinion for anyone else on how good the films are. You end up saying things like "well if you`ve read the book you might like it unless your a purist. On the other hand if you haven`t read the book it may feel rushed but don`t worry when you read the book it`ll make sense!"
Personally I have read LOTR and haven`t read Harry potter and I loved LOTR film and I liked Harry potter, until the last half hour which I thought was rushed and cliched.
Overall I wouldn`t see harry potter again but would see lord of the rings again.
BUT!
If I`d read harry potter maybe I`d feel different, and if I hadn`t read LOTR I could see how I wouldn`t have liked it necessarily from a narrative perspective.......
And so it goes on
Chris
Wow I seem to recall the post being about the Releases of Harry Potter not another HP Vs LOTR again..
HP - For Kids
LOTR - For Adults
American Pie 2 - Funny as ******
See ya
LOL LOL
Well I am thoroughly looking forward to the DVD release of both HP & LOTR.
I saw HP and thought that it was a good adaptation of the book (of which I really like all 4) with most scenes and characters being very enjoyable, and I just hoped that LOTR would be as good.
Then I saw LOTR and thought it was fantastic. IMHO it is much better than HP, the whole film was great, with only a few minor niggles.
Don't get me wrong, I really like both films, I just got more enjoyment from LOTR, and so did my 2 nephews (aged 10 & 13) whom I took to see LOTR, and who are major HP fans too. They are only just starting to read LOTR after finishing The Hobbit, which they were only half way through when they saw the film.
I shall pre-order both of these DVDs :)
Yep i'll be Pre-ordering both titles regardless of what I said earlier (DVD Fanatic you see - LOL)
dean richardson
10-01-2002, 17:29
We'll see which film is remembered in 20 years time - you see a film with a pre-teen target audience will never be historically revered
You mean like star wars.
:D
Originally posted by dean richardson
You mean like star wars.
:D
youre implying that the target audience for star wars was people under 13? i think thats just plain wrong mate.
Originally posted by tezmo
youre implying that the target audience for star wars was people under 13? i think thats just plain wrong mate.
I'm sure i've read somewhere Lucas saying that the target audience was 10 year olds.
Ben Martin
10-01-2002, 22:46
one thing that strikes me about all the harry potter lovers on these forums (and i'm not knocking you for liking the film - that's fine with me), is that they seem to feel that they need to protect the integrity of the film for the sake of the book(s). they seem to fear that any adverse reaction to the movie whatsoever might tarnish the book(s) and thus they must defend even it's most obviously weak points, often by referring to the book. but talking about the quality of the books, let alone the number they have sold (!), has no bearing whatsoever on whether the film is any good or not!
it is perfectly possible that the film is ********* (great for kids but well below-par for most adults) despite the book being a superb piece of work that can be enjoyed by adults and kids alike. they are separate entities from separate mediums and should be treated as such.
i personally think this is the main reason why most adults defending/claiming to like the movie do so .... they saw it, didn't enjoy it as much as their quite-rightly beloved books, realised it was indeed only a movie for kids, but feel that admitting as much would make them look bad and more-importantly might make them look childish for liking the books (which i do feel would be grossly unfair). thus they decide to defend the entire package wholesale.
SithLordSi
11-01-2002, 01:17
I agree with Ben. Makes perfect sense, and describes my bro and his attitude towards the Potter movie to a 'T'.
FightForTheRight
11-01-2002, 01:36
Up until two weeks ago, I would have slated this film to the hills (without having seen it yet ;)). However, I think I may give it a shot - don't know why, don't know when.
I think the prospect of being in a cinema with about 50+ annoying children put me off originally.
Originally posted by Ben Martin
one thing that strikes me about all the harry potter lovers on these forums (and i'm not knocking you for liking the film - that's fine with me), is that they seem to feel that they need to protect the integrity of the film for the sake of the book(s). they seem to fear that any adverse reaction to the movie whatsoever might tarnish the book(s) and thus they must defend even it's most obviously weak points, often by referring to the book. but talking about the quality of the books, let alone the number they have sold (!), has no bearing whatsoever on whether the film is any good or not!
it is perfectly possible that the film is ********* (great for kids but well below-par for most adults) despite the book being a superb piece of work that can be enjoyed by adults and kids alike. they are separate entities from separate mediums and should be treated as such.
i personally think this is the main reason why most adults defending/claiming to like the movie do so .... they saw it, didn't enjoy it as much as their quite-rightly beloved books, realised it was indeed only a movie for kids, but feel that admitting as much would make them look bad and more-importantly might make them look childish for liking the books (which i do feel would be grossly unfair). thus they decide to defend the entire package wholesale.
I enoyed the Harry Potter film, why? because I did I don't have to explain or justify it to anyone I like what I like not what I am told to like. As for the Lord of the Rings I am expecting to enjoy this one as well (When I finally get my car back from my dad :( ) I don't see it as being either or. They are two films if I like both of then thats my choice. As for the Harry Potter being a childs film well so what I still enjoy the disney cartoons and they are kids films too why limit yourself to one type of film when you can enjoy many.
dean richardson
11-01-2002, 08:27
Originally posted by tezmo youre implying that the target audience for star wars was people under 13? i think thats just plain wrong mate.
I'm sure i've read somewhere Lucas saying that the target audience was 10 year olds.
The target audience for star wars was early teens. Just because you are no longer 12 does not change that fact. Lucas has said so, and as it is his film and not mine or yours then i will side with him on his percieved target audience.
Star wars is a kids film that has stood the test of time v well. I imagine this will be true of potter.
ps... i thought potter film was a bit shallow but can understand that others may see it as the 2nd coming with out the need to slate it just because another film fulfills my taste.
Originally posted by tezmo
youre implying that the target audience for star wars was people under 13? i think thats just plain wrong mate.
Star Wars was aimed at young children. George Lucas had no idea that it would be so popular with adults when he first thought up the idea.
I think that most of us here have at least one film aimed at children in our collections (I have Toy Story 1 & 2 and Chicken Run), so you can't rate a film on it's target audience.
I saw Harry Potter at the cinema and thought it was great. I have just started reading the books, because I enjoyed the film so much :)
I also thought that LOTR was excellent :D and much better than harry potter, but thats my opinion.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.