Viewing Thread:
"LORD OF THE RINGS .v. HARRY POTTER"

Is everyone ready for this coming battle? I know they are not being released together, but they will undoubtably be compared against one another when they do arrive. Does anyone have an opinion now?

Also, can we stem the tide of merchandising which is about to engulf us linked to these films???

HARRY POTTER: Good, clean, easily accessible fun for people of all ages to enjoy. No matter how old or young you are, you will no doubt enjoy the highs and lows of Harry and his friends. Adults can now hold decent conversations with children on a mutually enjoyable topic.

It bridges the generation gap.


LORD OF THE RINGS: A book for Geeks with too much time on their hands, over discriptive, slow moving, etc.

"I'll wait for the film" a quote designed for this book!

What the hell is Lord Of The Rings??????
There has been so much hype over this film for the past couple of years but all I can gather is that It sounds rubbish and is fairytale/fantasy film based upon series of books that I had never herd of.

How old is the series of books? When (as always this word is used loosely) I was at school the only style of Harry Potter (Lord Of The Rings?) book(s) I read was "The Worst Witch". if anybody can remember The Worst Witch, they were excellent books (unlike the loosely Based TV series, which is appalling).

So what is Lord Of The Rings (film) like and will I change my opinion on it?

Bearing in mind I disliked the following Films and TV series,
The Labyrinth, The Wizard Of OZ, The Never Ending Story, Wind In The Willows, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Angel, Heculears, Xena and Charmed.

Ah. I looked into it, and hes apparently been in Deep Impact. Hopefully LOTR won't take anything except him from that film. It was really really bad.

Elijah Wood was in The Faculty I think.

Elijah Wood? Rings a bell, but I can't remember what he's been in before. So, Sean Bean is Boromir. Thats good, although that means he gets killed at the beginning of The Two Towers. Damn. He'd be better playing Aragorn, then we could see him all the way through.

I was reading about LOTR on various websites, and it appears they've changed the movie lots. The biggest change, as far as I can see, is that Arwen is now a warrior, and turns up all over the place, instead of moping round Rivendell where she belongs.

Stryke wrote:
Who is Sean Bean playing? Could be
> Gimli, Aragon or Boromir, as far as I can guess. Im sure Vottenator
> can tell me.

I can save him the trouble and tell you now that he's playing Boromir.

While we're at it, let's throw in the cast list of the fellowship of nine (a full credits list can be found on IMDB.com)

Elijah Wood - Frodo Baggins

Ian McKellen - Gandalf the Grey

Viggo Mortensen - Aragorn ("Strider")

Sean Astin - Samwise "Sam" Gamgee

John Rhys-Davies - Gimli

Sean Bean - Boromir

Billy Boyd - Peregrin "Pippin" Took

Dominic Monaghan - Meriadoc "Merry" Brandybuck

Orlando Bloom - Legolas Greenleaf

Dr Gonzo wrote:
> They're both going to be great, they'll both start legendary series
> of films. That's all that there is to be said on the subject
> really...

For what it's worth, if I had the choice of seeing one
> of them right now instead of waiting it would be Harry Potter, said
> without a hesitation.

Sorry, but I'd see LOTR without a doubt. For a start its a better book, and second I hate how commercial Harry Potter has suddenly become. Didn't the author once say something about not exploiting it with cheap merchandise, and suddenly its everywhere. Although, nearer the release date, I'm sure we might see LOTR posters and stuff appearing.

Shocktrooper wrote:
> For all of you that hasn't read Harry Potter - read it!

I find it
> annoying if people automatically decide it to be a 'childish' book,
> when it is totally and utterly the opposite. I've re-read each book
> 4 times each! They're that good, and I'm 15. My Mum, Dad, Sister,
> Aunty and Uncle - along with ALL of my cousins have read Harry
> Potter - and they all loved it. It is a film for ALL ages. PLEASE DO
> NOT judge a book by its cover - any of you, it's plain stupid. Don't
> be fooled by the press stating the facts that Harry Potter has
> "grabbed the hearts" of millions of yopung children -
> because I'm led to believ that for a long time Harry Potter was in
> the top-three of the best-selling charts for ADULTS!!

I can't
> wait for the film because I believe it will be highly
> enjoyable.


I'd stand by that. I, up until recently, was one of the people guilty of disregarding the Harry Potter books thinking them to be childish.
I'm 19 and am Harry Potters newest fan. I picked up the first book last weekend whilst bored in Birmingham. I was instantly hooked and am now partway through the third installment with the fourth book on standbye. I can't wait for the film now!
... and to think this time last week I had absolutely no interest in seeing it at all!

They're both going to be great, they'll both start legendary series of films. That's all that there is to be said on the subject really...

For what it's worth, if I had the choice of seeing one of them right now instead of waiting it would be Harry Potter, said without a hesitation.

I think Lord of the rings would kick!