Harry Potter and the Goblet of Poor Scripting...

phyco126 · Post by **phyco126** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:10 am

You... you hate LotR? *faints*

I like both LotR and Harry Potter movies. (Never read the Harry Potter books though.)

Asmodean · Post by **Asmodean** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:57 am

phyco126 wrote:You... you hate LotR? *faints*

I like both LotR and Harry Potter movies. (Never read the Harry Potter books though.)

Yes! I have no qualms with tellin' people this. I hate LotR. I've gotten plenty of people mad at me about that.
EVEN ERIC!! He signed off on me once.

It was before we were married. So it wasn't a spat!!

Post by **GhaleonOne** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:14 am

EVEN ERIC!! He signed off on me once.

*cracks up* It's so unlikely that it makes it believably funny!

Eric: And the strange relationship between Gollum and Frodo in that particular part of Two Towers is...
Justin: Eric?
Eric: What?
Justin: LotR's sucks.
Eric: ... *signs off*

phyco126 · Post by **phyco126** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:22 am

lol, Eric signing off? Wow. I have to go with G1 on that one. Funny as heck

Especially when G1 puts it that way

Post by **Pisces** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:54 pm

I was having a weird day, that day. It was displaced anger.

And, on a different note, anyone who expects a movie to meet their expectations from a book is kidding themselves. This is not because films are worse, or anything. This is because the director's vision of the book is always going to be different than your own from reading the book.

I will admit that, as a movie for someone who's never even read the book, Goblet of Fire had some flaws. But I still enjoyed it. It's difficult to examine that kind of bias objectively.

Post by **Kizyr** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:04 pm

Never mind the fact that movies and books are entirely different media. So much so that "the book was better" completely invalidates anyone's review of the movie.

Unless you realistically expect someone to make a 29-hour long movie that looks exactly like everyone pictured in their heads. KF

Roas Atrades · Post by **Roas Atrades** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:14 pm

Kizyr wrote:Never mind the fact that movies and books are entirely different media. So much so that "the book was better" completely invalidates anyone's review of the movie.

Unless you realistically expect someone to make a 29-hour long movie that looks exactly like everyone pictured in their heads. KF

Exactly. Movies are always going to be different than books simply because of time constraints alone. Then there are a lot of other factors, but time is usually one of the major ones.

Any writer has to kinda cringe when their work is going to be translated to another medium.....and they have no control...which means their vision becomes something different. Sometimes you just have to accept that something is going to be different and move on.

Then again, watching LotR was better that reading it for me, because Tolkien has one of the worst writing styles I have ever read. I mean, you hardcore fans have to admit it's like wading through neck high mud with hundred pound weights on your feet.

One of my best friends back in college, who was a hardcore LotR fan, said it best about reading Fellowship:

"Okay, we're in the Shire....we're still in the Shire....still in the Shire....dammit when are we leaving the Shire?"

Post by **Ozone** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:45 pm

GhaleonOne wrote:
EVEN ERIC!! He signed off on me once.

*cracks up* It's so unlikely that it makes it believably funny!

Eric: And the strange relationship between Gollum and Frodo in that particular part of Two Towers is...
Justin: Eric?
Eric: What?
Justin: LotR's sucks.
Eric: ... *signs off*

Hahahahaha, that just made my day xD

Post by **Kizyr** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:14 pm

Roas Atrades wrote:Exactly. Movies are always going to be different than books simply because of time constraints alone. Then there are a lot of other factors, but time is usually one of the major ones.

Any writer has to kinda cringe when their work is going to be translated to another medium.....and they have no control...which means their vision becomes something different. Sometimes you just have to accept that something is going to be different and move on.

Shigema explained the idea of different media and hence different stories in the back of the SSS novels. Which is largely what solidified my ideas about the silliness of the whole book-over-movie arguments. I mean, reading about Alex and co. traipsing through a dungeon for hours is boring, so stuff had to be changed (majorly at that) in the storyline when he wrote the books based on SSS.

I figure the same is true with movies. Things are going to be different, so it's either that or no movie at all. Now, criticism about the movie from the standpoint of a movie, that's another thing. KF

phyco126 · Post by **phyco126** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:47 am

Well, also, if you made a movie the way you think it should be made, chances are there will be a crap load of people who end up hating the movie, because that's not how THEY invisioned it. That's why I want to make several short films, but I want to have direct control over it, as I don't trust anyone else to do it. Though, someone can Direct, I'll just help

Silver Phoenix · Post by **Silver Phoenix** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:02 am

I'm coming into this late, but a friend had said that the LoTR books were boring storywise. I think Tolkien was over-descriptive which kept the story from moving fluidly. It's great to have details but they can become confusing when the story suffers because of them.

Post by **Sonic#** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:02 pm

At least for me, LOTR was fine in its descriptions. The detail was immersive. Without it, many parts of the story would not have been meaningful enough, would not have been significant. I actually felt like the events were going on within a distinct world, rather than the setting being just a two-walled facade to simply serve the purpose of the story.

Post by **GhaleonOne** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:53 am

So I know this thread is old, but I figured it was easier to just make a new reply rather than any entire new thread when there's already here.

I really liked this movie. I watched the first Harry Potter like 2 years ago, then forgot about them. I finally got around to watching the second one about 2 months ago, got hooked, watched the third one shortly after, and now, with the DVD having come out yesterday, I watched the fourth. Scripting aside, I think it's my favorite of the four movies, just based on the story and darker direction it took. So much so I'm tempted to read the books now. But I've got so many other books to read still that I'll probably hold off.

Either way, I'm really liking this series a great deal.

Dunkleheit · Post by **Dunkleheit** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:53 am

I like the books better. Not that the movies aren't good, because they are. The problem is putting all the plot in the books into the movies. The books get longer, but the movies don't.

Asmodean · Post by **Asmodean** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:26 am

I <3 Harry Potter, I've said it before and I'll say it again!

I just bought the movie and I'm happy. I've yet to watch it, as I'm goin' to be pullin' doubles and gettin' little sleep. But when the day comes... OH YES I WILL SHED MORE MAN TEARS!!

...I did you know... shed man tears in the theatres. JUST WHEN I THOUGHT I WOULDN'T!! They got me after it all!! DAMN THEM!

:: walks off to shed more man tears alone ::

Lunar Threads

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Poor Scripting...

Who is online