View Full Version : Why is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone ....
AdamBrunt
08-01-2002, 15:58
... part one of a SEPTOLOGY is slated for having a naff ending whilst LOTR's ending is perfectly acceptable because it is part of a trilogy ???
I went to see LOTR last night, knowing full well that there were two more films to come, but I was extremely let down by the ending. If Harry Potter's was naff then two boys walking down a mountain is hardly 'awe inspiring' is it. I find it even more strange since most the filming has already been done so surely they could have found a better (ie earlier/later) place to finish ??!!??
Arch Stanton
08-01-2002, 16:05
Because Harry Potter story's are ment to be stand alone stories with a story arc running in the background.
LOTR is one big mutha of a story which had to be cut down into 3 bitesized books/films.
do you see.
( Plus they did change the ending for rings. It actually ends a chapter into the Two Towers. )
AdamBrunt
08-01-2002, 16:23
Originally posted by Arch Stanton
Because Harry Potter story's are ment to be stand alone stories with a story arc running in the background.
LOTR is one big mutha of a story which had to be cut down into 3 bitesized books/films.
do you see.
( Plus they did change the ending for rings. It actually ends a chapter into the Two Towers. )
So would you agree that in terms of 'book to film' completeness (if you know what I mean) that neither ending is worse than the other ??
For example, if there was only going to be one LOTR film then you would have to say the ending was poor. BUT because you know there are two to come then it is acceptable, right. Similarly with Harry Potter, you always know that this is one part of seven (the stone part of the story is completed properly with the stone being destroyed but the film carries on to where the book finishes off, ie leaving you waiting for the next one, exactly the same situation with FOTR (except FOTR doesn't contain a 'sub story').
However, some people on this forum think this 'plot device' doesn't work for HP but does work for LOTR ??!!?? :rolleyes:
SithLordSi
09-01-2002, 02:07
My thoughts on the ending of Fellowship of the Ring aside, I don't hear anybody actually complaining about the ending of Harry Potter. I thought the ending of the film was perfectly satisfactory. It's the remainder of the film that I found something of a botched effort (something I can say that Fellowship wasn't guilty of).
Si
thanks for letting me know the stone gets destroyed AdamBrunt, saves watching the film.
hookbeak
09-01-2002, 07:36
Originally posted by martinb
thanks for letting me know the stone gets destroyed AdamBrunt, saves watching the film.
Thats like saying - "King Kong dies eh ? No point watching that then..."
This is actually a very minor plot point really, one question though - why bother reading a post about the Harry Potter movie if you're that sensitive that knowing any fact of a film destroys it for you ?
Flanners
09-01-2002, 07:37
I thought the Harry Potter film was rather naff, good for kids in the 'Young Sherlock Holmes' stable; but for a cinematic experience it was rather lame. LOTR on the other hand was an 'experience' the story, camera work, actors and special effects were fantastic.
Originally posted by hookbeak
Thats like saying - "King Kong dies eh ? No point watching that then..."
This is actually a very minor plot point really, one question though - why bother reading a post about the Harry Potter movie if you're that sensitive that knowing any fact of a film destroys it for you ?
to get some info as to whether the film is worth watching?
the king kong analogy isn't a fair one. for a start it's a well known film from the 1920's and so the story is generally very well known. And there has been a remake.
Even though the harry potter spoiler is minor it is still a spoiler and using the spoiler tag would have been the right thing to have done. Or at least have given a warning.
Michael Brooke
09-01-2002, 11:16
<B>for a start it's a well known film from the 1920's </B>
Not that well known if you can't get its decade right! :D
And I'd disagree that this is really a spoiler - my definition of the term is a plot revelation that actively damages your appreciation of the rest of the film by making you look at what happens in a different light.
Clearly, giving away the ending of <I>The Sixth Sense</I> falls into that category - but the Philosopher's Stone is something of a convenient McGuffin: it doesn't really matter what it is or what happens to it: it's just something the various characters want to get their hands on. Revealing what happens to the stone in the most abstract sense tells you nothing significant about the plot and I honestly don't think it will affect your enjoyment in any way.
yeap, sorry about the date, 1933, should have looked that up before posting! Best thing i can do is go and watch it and make my mind up.
ChrisAllenFiz
09-01-2002, 19:33
Originally posted by AdamBrunt
... part one of a SEPTOLOGY is slated for having a naff ending whilst LOTR's ending is perfectly acceptable because it is part of a trilogy ???
I went to see LOTR last night, knowing full well that there were two more films to come, but I was extremely let down by the ending. If Harry Potter's was naff then two boys walking down a mountain is hardly 'awe inspiring' is it. I find it even more strange since most the filming has already been done so surely they could have found a better (ie earlier/later) place to finish ??!!??
The difference for me is that the ending of harry potter, whilst it may be exactly the same as in the book, felt very cliched, and I felt it was also rushed because of the amount of background to the characters we had seen earlier on. I didn`t feel that way about LOTR, even though I did feel let down at the end of LOTR, it was only because I couldn`t watch the rest right then and there, whereas with Harry potter I wasn`t really that fussed about what happened next, just disappointed that an enjoyable film had been let down by a tacked on ending which felt like it had been put there because Rowling felt she had to have a 'proper' ending at the end of her first book.
Usual disclaimers about not havuing read the harry potter book but having read LOTR etc....
Chris
tj_director
10-01-2002, 18:33
Having seen it 4 times now, (sorry) i personally am finding it ever harder to see how the ending of FOTR is so dissapointing to some.
I could totally understand it, if the audience member didn't know it was part 1 etc.. plus the fact that at no point at the beginning or end is there say "PART 1" or "to be continued" plastered on the screen. In that case i could easily see the dissapointment.
But as it is, for those who know the story is split into 3 parts, i personally can't see anything wrong with the ending. There's a really good fight sequence, and i personally find the last lines and the last image quite touching, it shows what's ahead in true adventure story fashion, and is the perfect last image before ACT 2 in my opinion!! :) And I bet i'm not the only one who gets a lump in their throat when Frodo turns around and says "Sam..."
I have read the book, so i knew the ending. So i recommend watching the film again, and you won't find the ending so anti-climatic -- i personally find it all poetic, it doesn't end on some big rousing fanfare or some big award ceremony a la "Harry Potter", "Star Wars" etc... but more like "Godfather", quitely and subtely, leaving you wanting just a bit more. Even if the next two films never existed, i could still see the ending of FOTR being satisfactory... but that's probably just me. ( I LOVE THE FILM!!!)
As for Harry Potter, i personally found the 3rd act a bit unoriginal and kind of anti-climactic, when i read the book ages ago (before the hype etc..), and i'm not just saying that for the sake of argument. Before watching the film i was worried how they would beef up the 3rd act -- the end result isn't bad, though it borders on the ridiculous (due to the Children's acting during the Chess scene), and the final scenes (Point allocation) were more exciting in the book, eventhough you knew what was going to happen! I and unlike HP, I found the ending of FOTR is better done in the film than the book (which is some achievement!)
In conclusion, the ending of Harry Potter is no way near as good or satisfactory in my opinion as that of FOTR. In time to come people will start to see it -- and hopefully some stupid/naive/follow the leader type little kids will start to realise that while Harry Potter is good, it simply doesn't touch on LOTR. Books and film wise. :)
Originally posted by tj_director
In time to come people will start to see it -- and hopefully some stupid/naive/follow the leader type little kids will start to realise that while Harry Potter is good, it simply doesn't touch on LOTR. Books and film wise. :)
That sounds like a quote from a mad scientist!
TJ, I'd like 1000 words from you on why, in the late 22nd century, Australians will sing the praises of Neighbours, yet decry Home And Away as merely sub standard with much less rounded cliff hangers!
Now, more than ever, is the time for you to read that sig of yours! :)
davey1970
13-01-2002, 13:52
home & away is vastly superior & i love watching the omnibus on a saturday.
perhaps i shouldn't say, but I'm not joking lol.
as for LOTR, I agree that the ending was good, touching, and only disapointing because i could have sat through all 3 films there and then.
I don't know if anyone else found this though, but I will have to see the film again because the first time i think i was just sat in awe because i couldn't quite grasp that i was watching the film of it, kept remembering bits from the book (haven't read it for years), and generally just feeling totally bemused and pleased that i was seeing this on the screen after having read it approx 17 years ago.
d
tj_director
14-01-2002, 12:15
Originally posted by McD
That sounds like a quote from a mad scientist!
you're right it does... i step down from my high horse, and shall ride off on a pony :o
:rolleyes:
Dear Mr Echo
14-01-2002, 14:34
Originally posted by tj_director
In conclusion, the ending of Harry Potter is no way near as good or satisfactory in my opinion as that of FOTR. In time to come people will start to see it -- and hopefully some stupid/naive/follow the leader type little kids will start to realise that while Harry Potter is good, it simply doesn't touch on LOTR. Books and film wise. :)
EDIT -
... oh... forget it - I was going to have a moan about why people are continually comparing these two films. Seems extremely pointless to me. I think they both stand up quite well on their own merits and apart from the screamingly obvious connection of wizardry, are as different as chalk and something that isn't chalk.
Andrew
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.