 | | Saw the movie today!
|
|
I'm glad to say it does live up to all the hype. Everything shown is exactly as I imagined it to be, having read the books. My only reservation is that, understandably, the story has been abbreviated, so consequently some of the characters or scenes (...) (23 years ago, 10-Nov-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today!
|
|
(...) Plus it had a new LOTR trailer, in which everything was even closer to how I imagined it than HP was!!! I loved HP&TPS. Despite it being a 2.5 hour film all the kids in the cinema were rapt throughout, there is little greater praise. Just one (...) (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today!
|
|
In lugnet.loc.uk, Simon Bennett writes: Just one question, (...) It'll be broken down into 2 feature length movies. Instead of just one super long 6hr film. The first will be during the Thanksgivin' day holiday, the second during Christmass... of (...) (23 years ago, 12-Nov-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today!
|
|
(...) Never mind Harry Potter, did you get your "Shrek" DVD yesterday? Notice the <set:4559> Cargo Railway running around the monitor of one of the animators in "The Tech of Shrek" feature. Jason J Railton (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today!
|
|
"Jason J. Railton" <j.j.railton@cwcom.net> wrote in message news:GMqH0v.Fxv@lugnet.com... (...) the (...) animators (...) Yes, I did, but haven't watched the extras yet. (BTW -- I can't figure out how to get to the DVD-ROM content, perhaps you can (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today!
|
|
(...) Well, I haven't read the books, and I'm glad to say that this didn't matter much in following the film. But, I can still see some apparent abbreviations. First, I agree with Maggie about the location of the hut. I was quite surprised to see (...) (23 years ago, 27-Nov-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today!
|
|
i haven't the read the books, i am never going to read the books (my reading list is too full already!!) but i saw the film! impressions: better than i thought it was going to be, but at points it was seriously trite. moments, such as the awarding (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
saw the film last night and words fail me in a family newsgroup like this to adequately describe how dire it was. If it was indeed as close to the book as some say I'm suprised its only Neil Gaiman who is (apparently) suing. There wasn't one (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
"James Stacey" <james@minifig.co.uk> wrote in message news:GntA1M.2HD@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) <snip> The same Neil gaiman of "Sandman" fame? Why's he suing? I for one will not be seeing the Harry Potter movie or reading the books. Why (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
(...) oo-er :) (...) yes the very same. It was over a character from the book of death, but he's not going to sue now (I checked) whoo hoo 15 days till Fellowship of the Ring -- James Stacey ---...--- www.minifig.co.uk #925 - I'm a citizen of (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
(...) to (...) Never mind the film itself, what about the SW part 2 trailer? That was worse. SW has clearly drifted into the mainstream Hollywood bracket, with all those earth-bound shots of scenic beauty and lovey-dovey romantic diversions. Pah! (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
(...) Show me any book that is totally original. As a childrens book, which as you point out it is, I have to say that the series is building up to be an impressive set of books with the prisoner of Azkaban being my favourite so far. Yes of course, (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
(...) Speaking as an outsider, since I haven't read more than a few pages of Potter (though I'm casually familiar with the overall plot), I would suggest that one of Rowlings' greatest virtues is that the vast story she's crafted is one of very, (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
(...) I'm an outsider, too, but if you remember what was on the children's fantasy list 20 years ago, there were a tremendous number of books about witchcraft, not derivative of those things either. Susan Cooper doesn't count (too Arthurian) but (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
I fully agree that lending aspects from other litriture or sources is valid and can lead to greater creativity and fantastic works. Shakespear's plays were nearly all reworkings of existing stories, Tolkiens LotR contains many aspects and concepts (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
(...) That's not a bad point, and I should have specified "major 20th century works of Western fantasy. All of these Victorian Witchcraft writers played their part, but honestly none can be said to have had the impact of Arthur, Gandalf, or Harry. (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
(...) I am an outsider on both counts as I am someone that would prefer to read the source mythology over most fantasy fiction in the first place, but even I am excited by the LOTR movie. LOTR has stood the test of time, and while I somehow never (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
(...) So, any time four characters unite against a powerful enemy, it's derivative of Tolkien? (...) So, any time an old character has a pre-story history with the enemy, it's derivative of Tolkien? And I would point out that Gandalf isn't (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
(...) This only helps to reinforce my assertation that LotR is basically Star Wars with the serial numbers filed off. Cheers, - jsproat (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Dave Schuler writes: My point is that, if you use selective observation as you have done, it's (...) ??? Really? Please prove and do this for Monty Python's Holy Grail and The Matrix... :-) John (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
(...) That's a little premature. When I was a kid, *everybody* in my class had read or listened to those authors I brought up (thanks to reading lists). Tolkien was obscure by comparison (few are able to conquer Tolkien before age 12. He didn't win (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
Ah yes cool I'd forgotten those. I'll add them to the list :) (by the way the list in the last posting was a JOKE) :P -- James Stacey ---...--- www.minifig.co.uk #925 - I'm a citizen of Legoland travelling Incommunicado "Dave Schuler" (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
(...) Asimov's magazine (arrived yesterday) carries an article contrasting polar opposites Tolkien and ... Mervyn Peake (_Gormenghast_). Somehow I have managed to delay learning more than how to spell that, and this columnist considers him the (...) (23 years ago, 7-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
(...) Hmm.. Another great point. Maybe I should reduce the "absoluteness" of my earlier comment, and say simply that many post-Tolkien writers are very heavily influenced by him. How's that for non-commital?! 8^) (...) Feh! Time and space are surely (...) (23 years ago, 7-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | LoTR v. Harry Potter
|
|
(...) snip and James goes on to give several other striking similarities. I am 30 years old, and I have read the Hobbit, LoTR, and most all of JRR Tolkien's other related works, as well as most of Christopher Tolkien's scholarship on his father's (...) (23 years ago, 7-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR v. Harry Potter
|
|
(...) **snip of some discussion of theme archetypes** The central issue is originality and cleverness of presentation. To this end, I would say Rowling has definitely achieved originality of the whole if not of the parts, and that's really all an (...) (23 years ago, 7-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR v. Harry Potter
|
|
(...) I am not really taking issue with the above statement, but it reminded me of a great essay in cultural anthropology: "Shakespeare in the Bush" (URL) surprised to find it online and for FREE! I love that essay... -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 7-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR v. Harry Potter
|
|
(...) I stand by my characterization. Did you happen to walk around on Halloween night? There were LEGIONS of kids wearing wizard costumes. The story has struck a chord with the children of the world to such an amazing extent that they are actually (...) (23 years ago, 8-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR v. Harry Potter
|
|
(...) screens. Maybe, maybe not. Would these legions of consumers have been wearing HP costumes if the movie hadn't been at the crest of a marketing wave since early Spring? I doubt it, though we can never know for sure. In any case, you're (...) (23 years ago, 10-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR v. Harry Potter
|
|
(...) I had seen that Onion piece earlier, but it didn't really support my argument so I didn't deighn to mention it:) Maybe 10 years from now, Harry Potter will be long forgotten, and I will have egg on my face. Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, (...) (23 years ago, 10-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
a somewhat fuller review: Thomas M. Disch: _The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of: How Science Fiction Conquered the World_ I didn't realize how sardonic his book was until I had paid for it. In the first chapter, The Right To Lie, Disch explores how (...) (23 years ago, 10-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR v. Harry Potter
|
|
(...) Yeah, well, I'm STILL gonna go see The Lord of the Rings - I've been waiting (wait, I've run out of toes and fingers!) a long time for this. :-) Bruce (it's not like I haven't read it enough) (23 years ago, 10-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR v. Harry Potter
|
|
(...) Just read and enjoyed the essay. Now your assignment--right a fictional account of someone trying to explain the plot of LoTR to those tribal elders. :) Aaron D. (23 years ago, 10-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today!
|
|
(...) I saw it monday (best day for movies, theater was almost empty :-) From the first moments till the end, the story grabbed me! Not having read the books yet (they're on order... here in Holland it turned out to be impossible to find the English (...) (23 years ago, 16-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
