which is the better film

**DCDayDreamer** · June 26th, 2004, 17:44

The directors of both series of films have done an excellent job of translating the stories from novel form into film.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm not much of a fan of either to be honest, although I think LOTR is probably worse. We've argued for hours about the movie in my media class, my conclusions are that it was a pretty brainless interpretation of the book, and using really obvious stereotypes, I really would expect a lot more from the director of Braindead. The lowpoint for me is the thingyney accents of those orc things.... come on now thingyNEY. jeeeez, i was expecting thingy van d**e to appear at one point for a rousing rendition of "step in time".

That's a very strange point of view, what you're actually talking about in your media class is how one person had a vision of creating a classic story of good v's evil into a movie (not even the greatest directors even attempted a LOTR text to celluloid transition - forget the half animated, badly funded early eighties effort)- the end result is a masterpiece of modern movie techniques using old 'stereotype' (as some of the text implies) characters and new ideas of modern creation.

What I find a nice appreciation of hard work and creation is the fact that the copyright holders of 'The Hobbit' - namely Tolkien's direct family found the film transition of 'LOTR' to be a work of pure art and are considering releasing the rights for a movie version of 'The Hobbit'.

When I was in media class we used our imagination to create and develop basic ideas (I wonder if Peter Jackson used the same methods?), seems time has eroded the fundamentals of media to basic critisism. The end result of the LOTR trilogy is as close as we'll ever see (in our lifetime) to the original text version of the story, let me put it this way...
is any one brave enought to try and do a better job?

The Harry Potter bandwagon will roll on and on, once the final book is on film it's game over - the author is a multi-millionaire, all involved in the film will be rich enough and millions of fans of the book, film or both will be happy.

**souLLy** · June 26th, 2004, 18:10

don't get me wrong i do think it's a very brave thing to attempt, I just think it could have been a bit more experimental with his ideas. All of the good people are rich and white and all the poor people are poor and black, just seems like a really watered down mass appeal thing to do. It just didn't keep my attention really, seemed like long shot of landscape, long talk about what was going to happen next, some more walking and landscape, a battle, repeat. The first film didn't really entertain me at all, the second was cool at the bits with gollum in but you had to wait half an hour in between the parts he was in, and I haven't seen the third.

Just my opinion anyways. I'm not a massive fan of all of these Epic films that are everywhere right now anyways Troy, Gladiator... Hollywood do too much watering down of an idea and chucking money at it, 28 days is the perfect example of what you can do with a low budget (they filmed on mini dv

) Thats more scary than any hollywood film I've seen in forever.

**MetaFox** · June 26th, 2004, 20:43

[quote author=DCDayDreamer link=board=off;num=1088160440;start=0#10 date=06/26/04 at 18:44:11]What I find a nice appreciation of hard work and creation is the fact that the copyright holders of 'The Hobbit' - namely Tolkien's direct family found the film transition of 'LOTR' to be a work of pure art and are considering releasing the rights for a movie version of 'The Hobbit'.[/quote]Are they?

That'd be great. I love "The Hobbit". I used to read it all the time as a kid. ;D

**biagrin_sackville** · June 30th, 2004, 02:00

bonus point to metafox.

**guymelef** · June 30th, 2004, 04:58

harry potter is cool if your bored
LOTR if you haven't seen it or read the books
I've been reading his main 5 books over and over for about 11 years.
hobbit
lotr trilogy
and the adventures of tom bombadil and other works. (fun if you like rhymes, and some backstory to the most powerful man in middle earth)
anyway, yes there is a lot of language differences between older versions of the book and newer versions of the book. *If you can't get a hold of a copy that was printed before the hobbit movie and the crappy lotr live action/animated move (circa 1977). then you could also try to find christopher tolkien's accompaniment to the trilogy. but with the demand like it is right now --good luck-- . *my advice is to raid your grannies, or aunties, books that are in their attic.

as far as harry potter goes.. gadgets are cool, monsters need some work (except for the hipogryph) kids are dumb and teachers are dumber. *I never even thought about reading the books. *Shanara was better. but thieves world rules all. just about anything by the aspirins, rober and lynn. *

**Christuserloeser** · June 30th, 2004, 06:30

Thanx for the hint but actually in Germany the situation is worse... There's an official authorized translation which uses old language and expressions (done by Carroux and Tolkien himself) and then the new version using easier and more modern language done when the first movie came out.

I guess I'll stick with the older English one that you've suggested.

Mmh, our grannies never were very interested in British fantasy but the generation of my mother grew up with it

My brother just found her a used but mint complete collection of the original translation by Tolkien and Carroux 8)

**wardishy** · July 14th, 2004, 09:26

both suck. harry potter is much worse than the book version and lord of the rongs is crap in the movie and the book

**swordstalker** · July 31st, 2004, 04:25

lord of the rings not lord of the rongs wardishy a.k.a kris chong

i think lord of the rings is much better because of the action

i hope that if the hobbit is released as a film it won't ruin the book

the hobbit really is a good book

**Kamjin** · July 31st, 2004, 06:25

I still haven't seen the rings trilogy.. I was supposed to have bought the DVD set by now.. but it seems to have just gotten put on the side... I have/read the books including Hobbit, Silmarillion.. question is will it dissapoint? I generally read at least 1 book/month..
Dune was okay.. but the ending well..
Hitchikers BBC was good for it's time.
Battlfield Earth.. I felt violated >

Is it overhyped?? will I leave with a bad taste in my mouth due to "creative licence" and the drowning of all the worms??

**Cap'n 1time** · July 31st, 2004, 09:23

I read most of the harry potter books and thought they were quite good, Never looked into the LOTR, but i would like to when i get a chance.

In my opinion LOTR was overated. Harry Potter was a decent movie.