lord of the rings or harry potter, what do you prefer |
  |
 Jun 15 2004, 04:27 PM
Post
#26
|
|
 Prez of Student Council 04/05  Group: Member Posts: 2,888 Joined: Jan 2004 Member No: 851  |
lord of the rings of course, i dunno why, i just dont like HP.. i got the book and can't finish the first page... i have that thick one... the gablet of fire... can't stand it..
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2004, 07:25 PM
Post
#27
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 675 Joined: Apr 2004 Member No: 14,822 |
Harry Potter is better. i watched 3 of the LOTR movies...i didn't understand anything...one minute they are all talking and the second people are KILLING each other...and that one guy "me precious..." creeps me out.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2004, 07:28 PM
Post
#28
|
|
 pixel hybrid Group: Member Posts: 6,410 Joined: Jan 2004 Member No: 1,081 |
QUOTE(phatty @ Jun 13 2004, 6:02 PM) i love both Totally!  But sometimes, LOTR movies get really boring..
|
|
|
|
| *Kathleen* |
Jun 15 2004, 07:54 PM
Post
#29
|
|
Guest |
QUOTE both have wizards: gandalf and dumbledore As I said, this falls into the magical category...both are fantasy, mind you, so of course they're going to have wizards. QUOTE both have some weerd looking creature who speake in 2nd person: dobby and gollum Don't you mean third person? Furthermore, look how different they are: one is evil, one is good. One has a split-personality, the other one doesn't. Who's to say they look weird? There's a ton of other creatures in both series that look equall weird. QUOTE both have trolls: you get it Look to my first remark. QUOTE both have hooded people who are scary: dementors and ring wraiths You could look to my first, and also, they're once again so different in being. They certainly have different reasons for being there. Obviously there's going to be a "scary" set of people simply because that's just another element of writing. QUOTE both have someone who wants to take over the world: sauron, voldemort How many other books have people that want to take over the world? They obviously have to have a bad guy, and bad guys always want to take over the world. Furthermore, just look at how different they are with form. QUOTE scars: scar from when frodo got stabbed on weather top, lightning shaped scar on harry's forehead. Um...Harry had that scar when he was born. QUOTE legendary swords: gordric gryffindors sword, the swrod of elendil King Arthur has the excalibur - are you going to call it a Lord of the Rings rip off, too? |
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2004, 08:05 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
to hell with you Group: Member Posts: 2,547 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 16,506 |
QUOTE(Kathleen @ Jun 15 2004, 7:54 PM) As I said, this falls into the magical category...both are fantasy, mind you, so of course they're going to have wizards. Don't you mean third person? Furthermore, look how different they are: one is evil, one is good. One has a split-personality, the other one doesn't. Who's to say they look weird? There's a ton of other creatures in both series that look equall weird. Look to my first remark. You could look to my first, and also, they're once again so different in being. They certainly have different reasons for being there. Obviously there's going to be a "scary" set of people simply because that's just another element of writing. How many other books have people that want to take over the world? They obviously have to have a bad guy, and bad guys always want to take over the world. Furthermore, just look at how different they are with form. Um...Harry had that scar when he was born. King Arthur has the excalibur - are you going to call it a Lord of the Rings rip off, too? well you dont have to get all pushy, im just making a point. |
|
|
|
| *Kathleen* |
Jun 15 2004, 08:06 PM
Post
#31
|
|
Guest |
I wasn't...I was just defending my point.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2004, 08:17 PM
Post
#32
|
|
 The Ghostly Fox Spirit Group: Member Posts: 115 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 20,962 |
Hmmm...As much as I must say I like the LOTR movies...I like the Harry Potter books better. More action and character developement.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2004, 09:15 PM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 3,102 Joined: Feb 2004 Member No: 3,162 |
The LOTR movies have a lot more action and hotter actors.
The HP books are a more interesting read. But if I had to choose one...Eh...I couldn't, really. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2004, 03:45 AM
Post
#34
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 1,831 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 20,324 |
LOTR is more of a 13+ movie. It requires much understanding and thought when listening to characters. You can be easily confused when you ignore what is being said and just watching the action. Harry Potter on the other hand, is almost for all audiences as it includes youngsters. It's probably easier to get than LOTR.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2004, 03:06 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
to hell with you Group: Member Posts: 2,547 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 16,506 |
QUOTE(sheddingtears @ Jun 16 2004, 3:45 AM) LOTR is more of a 13+ movie. It requires much understanding and thought when listening to characters. You can be easily confused when you ignore what is being said and just watching the action. Harry Potter on the other hand, is almost for all audiences as it includes youngsters. It's probably easier to get than LOTR. i totally agree. alot of my friends dont like it cuz they dont understand whats going on. reading the book helps yout o understand it more. if you decide to read the book f.y.i its kinda boring in the begining and takes alot of patience but it gets really good. |
|
|
|
| *tweeak* |
Jun 16 2004, 05:29 PM
Post
#36
|
|
Guest |
books first-
lotr may be a classic, but theyre so damn annoying. they just go on and on and on, like in the forest in the hobbit, i thought that part was never going to end. im kind of ashamed because it makes me seem ignorant wanting to read books for plot, but i really didnt like the lotr books much harry potter however were great. sure they were quick and easy, but nonetheless, great. they may not be original, but nothing is. really. now movies lotr made much better movies(and no, not just because of orlando bloom *rolls eyes*) they were very well made and generally excellent, especially when compared to the books harry potter were not. i guess they were okay, but i didnt really want to see them to begin with, because i thought they might ruin my personal visions of the books, but i was forced to watch them, and they were ok, just not as good as the books. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2004, 08:03 PM
Post
#37
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 1,153 Joined: Apr 2004 Member No: 10,193 |
i really have no clue cause i`ve never seen LOTR only the Harry Potter movies. when i was gunna see the first one when it came out a LONNNGG time ago, i didn`t have time to watch it since it was so long. Since then i didn`t bother .. usually cause i forgot all about the movie.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2004, 08:06 PM
Post
#38
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 7,048 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 22,696 |
NOT a Hard Question At all
 LOTR ALL THE WAY it has too much background that harry potter doesnt |
|
|
|
|
Jun 18 2004, 04:18 PM
Post
#39
|
|
 I'm only a member hehe Group: Member Posts: 188 Joined: Feb 2004 Member No: 5,875 |
well thats hard though I'd say LOTR for most action and funiest.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 18 2004, 04:37 PM
Post
#40
|
|
 teach me korean... i'm serious Group: Member Posts: 918 Joined: Mar 2004 Member No: 8,427 |
LOTR by far.... the third harry potter is best..
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 18 2004, 05:07 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Irene Group: Member Posts: 39 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 18,583 |
lord of the rings
I don't like harry potter for some odd reason. Too childish? Too weird? maybeee....... |
|
|
|
|
Jun 18 2004, 05:09 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
im' edible Group: Member Posts: 1,529 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 23,022 |
LOTR.
the third movie of Harry Potter SUCKED ass if you read the book. the third movie wasn't even up to par with the third book. and the third book was my fav. the third movie, they cutted alot of important scenes and HARRY got the firebolt during christmas (in the middle of the book) not the end. OMG the director did a horrible job with the third movie and he doesnt even read HARRY POTTER.  
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 18 2004, 05:53 PM
Post
#43
|
|
 繁體中文版 Group: Member Posts: 613 Joined: Feb 2004 Member No: 2,840 |
that shouldnt be a question....LOTR hands down....beats hp 100000000000000000000000000000000 to 1
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 18 2004, 08:39 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
The Ghostly Fox Spirit Group: Member Posts: 115 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 20,962 |
They butchered the 3rd harry potter movie, I know. Hopefully they don't do that to the 4th one (it's my favorite because people begin to die! ^_^)
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 21 2004, 02:01 PM
Post
#45
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 405 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 17,232 |
lord of the rings by farrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
harry potter sucks. no offense. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 21 2004, 02:21 PM
Post
#46
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 143 Joined: Apr 2004 Member No: 13,918 |
I like the LotR movies better but the books were WAY long and boring to read...i like the Harry Potter books better
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 21 2004, 04:25 PM
Post
#47
|
|
 kill is love... Group: Member Posts: 395 Joined: Dec 2003 Member No: 84 |
LOTR is way better, hairy potter can't even compare.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 22 2004, 10:27 PM
Post
#48
|
|
 Wife of Legolas Group: Member Posts: 1,290 Joined: Apr 2004 Member No: 10,190 |
i think they are two totally different kinds of things...
but........... i must confess i like LOTR better........ *i dance with the Mirkwood Elves* 
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 23 2004, 05:27 AM
Post
#49
|
|
 muted imperfections <3 Group: Official Member Posts: 3,295 Joined: Jan 2004 Member No: 2,260 |
i like both but LOTR is a classic. ahhh hard choice. k i decided im not gonna chose.
 jackie
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 23 2004, 07:59 AM
Post
#50
|
|
 Alisha Group: Member Posts: 2,341 Joined: Mar 2004 Member No: 9,880 |
wheres the poll? i like both.
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: