The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm a fan of both Lord of the Rings, and an even bigger fan of Harry Potter. I've read all the books thorughly and think that the film companys dont do them justice. They missed out so many things from bok in he Harry Potter film, like peeves for example. Also there was alot less amgic in Harry Potter, and the scene with Voldermort was rather pathetic. But when it comes to Lord of The Rings they supported the book very well. The characters were portrayed very well and its was mysterious, and i love mystery. It suck truer to the book then the Harry Potter film did. I think that warnerbro's didn't do J.K Rowling justice. I think that Lord of The Rings will rule the wide screen ove the coming Harry Potters films. But what do you think? The decision, is yours!
Oh i don't know! As long as its about Harry Potter its relevent! Try going on www.fanfiction.net theres loads of fan writtem storys on there, several are about Draco and Harry fallnig in love *shivers* very disturbing! Theres a few good ones on there though, written by your truly of course. Search up General Kaos on the search menu! Untold Desires, damn inspiring Fan story!
Solskjær wrote:
> On the Harry Potter subject - did you know you can buy t-shirts with 'Hairy
> Pornstar' printed on their front, in the same style of 'Harry Potter'!???
No,
> that's not very relevant is it. I just saw it in a magazine and thought it was
> quite clever.
Maybe not.
I dont know i found it quite funny.
> On the Harry Potter subject - did you know you can buy t-shirts with 'Hairy
> Pornstar' printed on their front, in the same style of 'Harry Potter'!???
No,
> that's not very relevant is it. I just saw it in a magazine and thought it was
> quite clever.
Maybe not.
I dont know i found it quite funny.
On the Harry Potter subject - did you know you can buy t-shirts with 'Hairy Pornstar' printed on their front, in the same style of 'Harry Potter'!???
No, that's not very relevant is it. I just saw it in a magazine and thought it was quite clever.
Maybe not.
No, that's not very relevant is it. I just saw it in a magazine and thought it was quite clever.
Maybe not.
Cyclone wrote:
> I think they did the best they could have done - they did miss lots out, yet
> people complaiend that the final version was too long - It could have been 9
> hours, not 3, with more to spare!
Yeah i guess, i couldnt have possibly sat through a 9 hour movie.
> I think they did the best they could have done - they did miss lots out, yet
> people complaiend that the final version was too long - It could have been 9
> hours, not 3, with more to spare!
Yeah i guess, i couldnt have possibly sat through a 9 hour movie.
I think they did the best they could have done - they did miss lots out, yet people complaiend that the final version was too long - It could have been 9 hours, not 3, with more to spare!
I thought it a little dissapointing that they left Tom Bombadili out of LOTR as well as seeing sam looking into the silver mirror, although i suppose that could spoil the surprise you get when they come home.
Belldandy wrote:
> The problem with Harry Potter was always going to be its main plot ingredient -
> magic. The books caused an uproar in much of middle America and also with many
> Christian groups the world over who feel that Harry and his friends will turn
> their little darlings into the next Aleister Crowley or Fiona Horne. It's okay
> to dress up as a witch or whatever for Halloween but read about witches and
> wizards..."yikes !" As much as possible the film steered away from the
> magic in the books and even had a name change for the UK, because "Harry
> Potter and the Sorceror's stone" might offend people or give the wrong
> impression, according to Warner Bros. Erm, excuse me, you mean it might give
> them the idea that there is Wizards and magic in the film.....doh! Instead we
> get the aptly boring title "Philosopher's stone". Yawn.
Also,
> harry Potter was always going to be a licensing free for all despite what
> blatant-liar-Rowling said before she became famous about not over merchandising
> Harry and co. Yeah right I believe you there Miss Rowling. The same applies to
> the film and those that follow. Lord Of The Rings was nearly five years in the
> making, Harry little over 1 year. The race is on to get every last bit of cash
> from Harry before his fans lose interest. It happened to Pokemon, it will happen
> to him.
Then we come to Tolkiens masterpiece. Pleasing millions of fans of
> all ges was never going to be easy, but Jackson and co did it whilst remaining
> true to the spirit of the story. Everything that matters is there, and the
> legendary tale of the ring is finally getting the films it deserved. For many it
> has reawakened interest in Tolkien, and has led to a greater understanding of
> the characters. Biblo's few short minutes of screentime in Rivendale say more
> about his character than a whole book or Tolkien ever could. The same for Arwen
> and Aragorn meeting in the starlight - that scene says more about them than the
> books could hope to. I first read Lord Of The Rings when I was ten, and five
> times before the film came out. The film had the look and fel to it that somehow
> suits it and doesn't betray the memory of Tolkien.
*Applauses* My god that inspiring. I have to agree with all the facts there. And the thing about Bilbo, wow, i have to agree with all your points. Anyone else want to reply?
> The problem with Harry Potter was always going to be its main plot ingredient -
> magic. The books caused an uproar in much of middle America and also with many
> Christian groups the world over who feel that Harry and his friends will turn
> their little darlings into the next Aleister Crowley or Fiona Horne. It's okay
> to dress up as a witch or whatever for Halloween but read about witches and
> wizards..."yikes !" As much as possible the film steered away from the
> magic in the books and even had a name change for the UK, because "Harry
> Potter and the Sorceror's stone" might offend people or give the wrong
> impression, according to Warner Bros. Erm, excuse me, you mean it might give
> them the idea that there is Wizards and magic in the film.....doh! Instead we
> get the aptly boring title "Philosopher's stone". Yawn.
Also,
> harry Potter was always going to be a licensing free for all despite what
> blatant-liar-Rowling said before she became famous about not over merchandising
> Harry and co. Yeah right I believe you there Miss Rowling. The same applies to
> the film and those that follow. Lord Of The Rings was nearly five years in the
> making, Harry little over 1 year. The race is on to get every last bit of cash
> from Harry before his fans lose interest. It happened to Pokemon, it will happen
> to him.
Then we come to Tolkiens masterpiece. Pleasing millions of fans of
> all ges was never going to be easy, but Jackson and co did it whilst remaining
> true to the spirit of the story. Everything that matters is there, and the
> legendary tale of the ring is finally getting the films it deserved. For many it
> has reawakened interest in Tolkien, and has led to a greater understanding of
> the characters. Biblo's few short minutes of screentime in Rivendale say more
> about his character than a whole book or Tolkien ever could. The same for Arwen
> and Aragorn meeting in the starlight - that scene says more about them than the
> books could hope to. I first read Lord Of The Rings when I was ten, and five
> times before the film came out. The film had the look and fel to it that somehow
> suits it and doesn't betray the memory of Tolkien.
*Applauses* My god that inspiring. I have to agree with all the facts there. And the thing about Bilbo, wow, i have to agree with all your points. Anyone else want to reply?
The problem with Harry Potter was always going to be its main plot ingredient - magic. The books caused an uproar in much of middle America and also with many Christian groups the world over who feel that Harry and his friends will turn their little darlings into the next Aleister Crowley or Fiona Horne. It's okay to dress up as a witch or whatever for Halloween but read about witches and wizards..."yikes !" As much as possible the film steered away from the magic in the books and even had a name change for the UK, because "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's stone" might offend people or give the wrong impression, according to Warner Bros. Erm, excuse me, you mean it might give them the idea that there is Wizards and magic in the film.....doh! Instead we get the aptly boring title "Philosopher's stone". Yawn.
Also, harry Potter was always going to be a licensing free for all despite what blatant-liar-Rowling said before she became famous about not over merchandising Harry and co. Yeah right I believe you there Miss Rowling. The same applies to the film and those that follow. Lord Of The Rings was nearly five years in the making, Harry little over 1 year. The race is on to get every last bit of cash from Harry before his fans lose interest. It happened to Pokemon, it will happen to him.
Then we come to Tolkiens masterpiece. Pleasing millions of fans of all ges was never going to be easy, but Jackson and co did it whilst remaining true to the spirit of the story. Everything that matters is there, and the legendary tale of the ring is finally getting the films it deserved. For many it has reawakened interest in Tolkien, and has led to a greater understanding of the characters. Biblo's few short minutes of screentime in Rivendale say more about his character than a whole book or Tolkien ever could. The same for Arwen and Aragorn meeting in the starlight - that scene says more about them than the books could hope to. I first read Lord Of The Rings when I was ten, and five times before the film came out. The film had the look and fel to it that somehow suits it and doesn't betray the memory of Tolkien.
Also, harry Potter was always going to be a licensing free for all despite what blatant-liar-Rowling said before she became famous about not over merchandising Harry and co. Yeah right I believe you there Miss Rowling. The same applies to the film and those that follow. Lord Of The Rings was nearly five years in the making, Harry little over 1 year. The race is on to get every last bit of cash from Harry before his fans lose interest. It happened to Pokemon, it will happen to him.
Then we come to Tolkiens masterpiece. Pleasing millions of fans of all ges was never going to be easy, but Jackson and co did it whilst remaining true to the spirit of the story. Everything that matters is there, and the legendary tale of the ring is finally getting the films it deserved. For many it has reawakened interest in Tolkien, and has led to a greater understanding of the characters. Biblo's few short minutes of screentime in Rivendale say more about his character than a whole book or Tolkien ever could. The same for Arwen and Aragorn meeting in the starlight - that scene says more about them than the books could hope to. I first read Lord Of The Rings when I was ten, and five times before the film came out. The film had the look and fel to it that somehow suits it and doesn't betray the memory of Tolkien.
I'm a fan of both Lord of the Rings, and an even bigger fan of Harry Potter. I've read all the books thorughly and think that the film companys dont do them justice. They missed out so many things from bok in he Harry Potter film, like peeves for example. Also there was alot less amgic in Harry Potter, and the scene with Voldermort was rather pathetic. But when it comes to Lord of The Rings they supported the book very well. The characters were portrayed very well and its was mysterious, and i love mystery. It suck truer to the book then the Harry Potter film did. I think that warnerbro's didn't do J.K Rowling justice. I think that Lord of The Rings will rule the wide screen ove the coming Harry Potters films. But what do you think? The decision, is yours!