Fellowship of the Ring Vs. Harry Potter

[Talimon]

I just rented Harry Potter, having just finished the book. I know it terms of sheer scope Tolkiens and Rowling's books can't even be compared. They are totally different, and I honestly don't think there is any question as to which is largely superior. But I was wondering what people thought in terms of the adaptation process. Harry Potter tries to stick very close to the books, and in many ways captures some of the wit and charm of the book. FotR on the other hand takes far more risks, but in my opinion is far superior to Harry Potter in terms of sheer intensity. I have to say that FotR feels much more passionate to me then Harry Potter does. It has more of a "pulse", to use someone elses description. I couldn't help feeling that even though HP stuck much closer to the text then FotR, it felt much duller. I really got the impression from FotR that there was much more of a grand vision involved, whereas HP felt like it was confined in an artistically defunct prison. I'm not saying HP had to be this way because of it's choice to stick close to the source material, but rather pointing to what straight adaptation without heart can do to a movie. It deffinitely had it's parts, though.

[Talimon]

Has this topic been discussed to death or do people not really care? I know Harry Potter isn't quite in league with anything Tolkien ever did, but I'm not talking about the tales here, just the adaptation technique.

[Aerin]

I thought, as an adaptation, Harry Potter was an excellent movie. True, CC took a few liberties here and there and changed scenes a little, but overall, I thoroughly enjoyed it. (In fact, I have it on DVD. :D)

In the "intensity" of a film, one must also consider the target audience the movie is aimed at. PJ's LotR was aimed at an older, more mature audience - the type who wants more Matrix-like action and more drama.

For Harry Potter, CC had to aim his movie at a slightly younger, but no less gullible, audience. The HP movie suprised me; there is meaning on 'different levels' for the different people who will watch it. For the little kids, there is the basic HP plot and characters, amazingly true to the book. The Quidditch and baby dragon scene were of great appeal to the younger movie patrons, while Ron's self-sacrifice and Harry's inner strength were popular among the older audience.

From the Harry Potter movie, I got the impression that a lot of love and heart was put into the movie. It was, at least, a charming movie (even my Dad liked it! :eek: ) that captured the innocence and magic of the first Harry Potter book.
Of course, if they keep making the movies as close to the books as the first one, the movies will get progressively darker and they might lose the interest of some of the littler kids (although some of the "childrens' movies" they have now astonish me with how much blood and gore they have....).

If one was to compare the film adapatation of HP against LotR, then HP would win as the closest to the original text. However, which would win 'capturing the essence of the books' is yet to be found; neither series is near completion.

[Talimon]

I would be careful to mix up what was love and heart and what was just the book shining through. The director and writer relied very heavily on the book, and so whatever was good about the book shone through here. But I also felt that the director was more of a "gun for hire" as opposed to someone who's taken it upon themselves to make a movie. I get the feeling from FotR that there are big wheels turning behind the screen, big plans, unpredictibility. That's part of the reason I actually like the movie so much, and waiting in anticipation for TTT: I honestly have no idea what's going to happen. PJ is the wizard, it's his vision that's driving it on. With HP I can almost predict how the next episode will look like. I'm not nearly anticipating it as much even though I really love the books (half-way through the second one). It just feels like the HP team is just doing thier job while the LotR team is doing so much more. This may be the reason some people don't like it, but personally I'm boiling over with excitement.

[Aerin]

You must admit, also, that it is not only the directors who make or break the movie; it's the actors as well. If HP hadn't been cast so well and the actors been so thoroughly 'in-character', then no matter how much work and heart CC put in the movie, it would not have worked the way it did.

You don't know what to expect for TTT? That's funny; I would have sworn PJ was "basing" it off of Tolkien's book "The Two Towers"....
Yes, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, the movie, will be like the book because.. guess why.. CC is following the book! :eek: What a novel concept! :rolleyes:

Perhaps if I am someday able to completely disassociate Tolkien's works from PJ's creation, I might be able to somewhat come to terms with the butcher job he has presented the world as "The Lord of the Rings".

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Aerin


You don't know what to expect for TTT? That's funny; I would have sworn PJ was "basing" it off of Tolkien's book "The Two Towers"....

I'd like to hope, after having seen FotR, you'd realize that PJ is making changes. You'd be very naive to still expect PJ to stick very closely to the books. Get over it, it's not going to happen. Not with these movies. There is so much that PJ is going to change about TTT. You might disagree with it from the get-go, but don't act surprised. At this point you either accept what PJ is doing or you don't. He's not going to turn around and make the movies all of sudden exact copies of the books. That's not his vision. Don't expect it. That's why I don't know what will happen: PJ's movies have an air of unpredictability for the fans, not to mention the non-fans. No one knows what will be changed, and no-one knows how it will turn out. That's what makes it more interesting to watch.

To me it's more like Harry Potter is just trying to tell the tale as easily as possible, while PJ is attempting far more. PJ's movies are about story-telling, and as I've said each story-teller has his own interpretation and emphasis. He's telling the tale of LotR as he see's it.

[Shion]

I read the first HP novel prior to watching the film, and enjoyed it. It was fun and engaging... I think it's great that kids are getting into this as opposed to, say, "Goosebumps." And although I found its 'charm' to be a little forced at times, I like the fact that for the most part, it doesn't 'pander down' to children.

HP is so different from LOTR that it's a sad reflection on how people view fantasy that the two have been so widely compared. But I must admit that it makes for an interesting conversation.

As far as the HP film goes, I didn't really care for it. In fact, it's probably the best example I can think of to show that 'faithfulness to the novel' alone doesn't necessarily make a good movie. It appears that the film-makers were so intent on being slavishly faithful to the book that the goal of making a creative movie in its own right took a back seat. In fact, I sense a degree of creative restraint. It's not a bad flick by any means, I just found it to be a bit dull. I'm not saying it's dull *because* it's faithful, just that they could have aimed to make it something a bit more special than a direct conversion.

And even as a direct conversion, it's lacking. The execution and timing, both by the actors and the film-makers, is limp. Where's the spark? The energy of the novel? Scenes that could have been great *exactly* as written on paper just didn't really come to life... for me, anyway. I didn't really feel any emotional bond to the characters, or any sense of excitement. The visuals were unremarkable (even tacky at times), and the evil (largely toned down from the novel) just wasn't threatening.

I suspect that Columbus was a significant part of the problems I had with the film. He's a competent craftsman, not a visionary- and I'd say that that's exactly what the 'marketing formula' required.

LOTR or otherwise, that's how I feel about HP. By comparison: Love LOTR or hate it, it's unique, vigorous, and has a sting to its tail.

-Bon

[Darth Saruman]

Yes, Harry Potter lacked energy, suspense, and drive. I haven't read the book, so I can't make any comparisons that way, but I have to say that the movie was quite dull. I found that I didn't give a damn about what happened to Potter or his friends. To me, there was no satisfactory reason existed as to why they (among other things) found themselves in the basement playing a giant, crappy, chess game. Did they do this just because it was in the book? That's what it seemed like to me. One of the worst parts of the film was that broomstick game they played. The field and spectator stands effects were so bad that they made me cringe.

[Talimon]

LOL, seriously. I even read an interview with the director where he said the match could have been done much better. :)

[Grond]

I am bringing this poll back to the top so that everyone can see it.

[joxy]

Like Tolkien, though naturally on a lesser scale, Rowling has a distinctive way with words, and I didn't notice as many clashes in verbal style as there are in FOTR. I don't know whether this is because more is taken directly from the book, or because any adaptor was more skilful with the style.
I am a little surprised to see adverse comments on the sets and effects, which looked pretty impressive to me: the castle inside and out, the chess game and quidditch match. Columbus and PJ seem to have the same poor taste in trolls, but I suppose they must be allowed their bit of personal fun!
This idea of "vision" appears again, with its obvious question: how much should anyone else's vision take over from the authors'?

[Talimon]

This idea of "vision" appears again, with its obvious question: how much should anyone else's vision take over from the authors'?

There is no "should" here, as this is largely a matter of taste. But for me, the director should have a clear vision, first and foremost, on how to make a good movie. If they can't get that far why are they making movies in the first place? Compare this to reworkings of Shakespeare. I've seen plays of Macbeth that have taken many more liberties then PJ has, but are incredible plays regardless. Orson Welles was/has been credited with putting on what was perhaps the greatest American production of Shakespeare, and he took liberties left and right. I guess my point here is that the movie should always come first.

I saw Chamber of Secrets last night, and to be honest I wasn't surprised in the least. It is percisely like the first one. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie. But it just can't be compared to the sheer size, scope, and energy in PJ's movie. And no, this doesn't have anything to do with the source material. It's just the simple fact that CC can't stand the pressure, and PJ can. One needs to ask this question as well: should an adaptation stay true at the expense of quality? I think the HP films are truly a testament to the results. They are fine childrens movies, and they have some nice effects, but you can't help wondering whether the director just couldn't stand the heat. We more or less know that PJ made the movie he wanted to make. For all I know CC wasn't involved in this project, his creative mark is so absent. And I do have to say this: it's not nearly as appealing to non-readers as FotR is. Which, ultimately, results in less people reading the book.

[Ariana Undomiel]

Ok, I have to be honest that even though I dislike both the Harry Potter book and the Harry Potter movie, when you compare the adaption accuracies between Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter the movie is closer to its book than the Fellowship Movie is to its book.
This does not mean that I like the Fellowship movie any less.

- Ariana

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
And I do have to say this: it's not nearly as appealing to non-readers as FotR is.
And I shouldn't have to say this:
You have absolutely NO WAY of knowing that it is so much less appealing to non-readers; no-one has that knowledge and no-one can ever obtain it.

Originally posted by Talimon
I guess my point here is that the movie should always come first.

And my point is that there shouldn't be this competition between them, that one should not have to come first over the other.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Talimon
...I saw Chamber of Secrets last night, and to be honest I wasn't surprised in the least. It is percisely like the first one. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie. But it just can't be compared to the sheer size, scope, and energy in PJ's movie. And no, this doesn't have anything to do with the source material. It's just the simple fact that CC can't stand the pressure, and PJ can. One needs to ask this question as well: should an adaptation stay true at the expense of quality? I think the HP films are truly a testament to the results. They are fine childrens movies, and they have some nice effects, but you can't help wondering whether the director just didn't have the ***** to make the changes he should have made. And I do have to say this: it's not nearly as appealing to non-readers as FotR is. Which, ultimately, results in less people reading the book. Box Office results belie your statements here. Harry Potter - The Sorcerer's Stone, as a whole, was a more successful cinematic spectacle than was Fellowship of the Ring. At least it is in the box office information I've seen. The paying public seem to think that the first Harry Potter movie was better than the first Lord of the Rings movie. We can't render final judgement until all are out... but your statement doesn't hold water.

[aragil]

And Grond, I think playing time of the movie belies your statement. If you were to look at money earned per time the movie is shown, the FotR did better than HP. It's just that FotR, as a 3 hour movie, was not shown as many times as HP. And before you go to much further with this more $ = better product thought, I'll remind you that the HP series has out-sold Tolkien. I hope you won't suggest that the book-purchasing public feels that HP is a better read.
Thank goodness there are other measures of quality beyond the dollar. FotR was nominated for 13 academy awards (not to mention the BAFTAs and Golden Globes) including best picture, best director, best adapted screenplay, and best supporting actor. IIRC, HP&tSS was never nominated for any awards relating to direction, acting, writing, or general quality.

[Grond]

Aragil, I encourage you to read Talimon's post again. He has expressed an opinion that is completely biased and NONFACTUAL. I am not a HP fan but I know that neither Talimon nor anyone else can broadbrush HP script a failure. In his opinion, it may be a failure... but he is resorting to the exact same tactics you have accused the NPW's of using. He is expressing an opinion as fact. This part of Talimon's quote is just plain unfair.originally posted by Talimon
...And no, this doesn't have anything to do with the source material. It's just the simple fact that CC can't stand the pressure, and PJ can. One needs to ask this question as well: should an adaptation stay true at the expense of quality? I think the HP films are truly a testament to the results. They are fine childrens movies, and they have some nice effects, but you can't help wondering whether the director just didn't have the ***** to make the changes he should have made. And I do have to say this: it's not nearly as appealing to non-readers as FotR is. Which, ultimately, results in less people reading the book.Talimon does exactly what he has chastised everyone else of doing (including me): speaking for the movie going public. How does Talimon, or anyone else for that matter, know the reading habits of a LotR movie fan or a HP movie fan. Last time I looked there hadn't been any demographic audience work done on this issue. If there has, I would encourage that it be posted here.

And actually, I do feel that the book purchasing public under the age of 15 feels that HP is by far a better read than LotR. As you say, HP caters to a different audience and has been a much greater hit in that priority targeted audience.

As for the award nominations you mentioned, LotR - FotR deserved the nominations. As you have regularly pointed out, best screenplay has nothing to do with the movie reflecting the source material. The acting was great... the direction awesome. (I have always liked PJ's direction just not his, along with PB and FW's, characterizations.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Grond
Talimon does exactly what he has chastised everyone else of doing (including me): speaking for the movie going public.
I haven't seen T chastising others for speaking for the public, but he himself certainly claims often to know what a majority thinks!

[Talimon]

Aragil, I encourage you to read Talimon's post again. He has expressed an opinion that is completely biased and NONFACTUAL.

Talimon does exactly what he has chastised everyone else of doing (including me): speaking for the movie going public. How does Talimon, or anyone else for that matter, know the reading habits of a LotR movie fan or a HP movie fan. Last time I looked there hadn't been any demographic audience work done on this issue. If there has, I would encourage that it be posted here.

The first quote is a given, and in fact disproves the second. If it's my opinion then obviously I'm not speaking for anyone else. All I am saying is that as a customer who has read the book, I was not nearly as entertained as I was with PJ's movie. And one has to wonder, in the name of the general audience, whether they, not having read the book to begin with, would think of it as highly as I have. Granted there is no way to tell, but as a movie in my opinion it's not as good as FotR.

As for opening weekend box-office reciepts, need I point you to the one holding the record? Spiderman. Enough said ;).

If box office reciepts are a sign of anything it's this: release hype and durability. The first says nothing other then how much marketing the movie had. The second is of far more interest, and is a sign of of how many times folks went to see a film (ussually). But the truth is that box-office reciepts can only give us a general feel for how well a movie was accepted, not an accurate one. And of course, as aragil points out, the actual "quality" of the film, by general standards, has absolutely nothing to do with this at all.

Finally, while on the subject of box-office reciepts, all these numbers are "domestic", or American. Overseas, FotR made more then $150 million more then Spiderman, and well over $200 million more then then AotC (Star Wars). The first Harry Potter does beat it internationally, though surprisingly it only made $4 million more domestically (inspite of having an opening that was twice as big and in nearly 500 more theatres). In short, the numbers can be decieving. Another interesting statistic is that FotR was in theatres for 35 weeks, while HP was only in for 27. That's a difference of 2 whole months. Lesson: if you are going to use numbers, look beyond the surface.

By the way, all these numbers are from:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com

Good site, if you are interested in this type of stuff. :)

[Lossengondiel]

while i did somewhat enjoy reading/watching Harry Potter, i very much think that TLOTR was a much better adaptation from the book to the movie, while Harry potter came in a close second place behind it.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Talimon
...The first quote is a given, and in fact disproves the second. If it's my opinion then obviously I'm not speaking for anyone else. All I am saying is that as a customer who has read the book, I was not nearly as entertained as I was with PJ's movie. Actually, the first quote referred to this portion of your post which was biased and nonfactual where you stated:Talimon posted
And no, this doesn't have anything to do with the source material. It's just the simple fact that CC can't stand the pressure, and PJ can. One needs to ask this question as well: should an adaptation stay true at the expense of quality? I think the HP films are truly a testament to the results. They are fine childrens movies, and they have some nice effects, but you can't help wondering whether the director just didn't have the ***** to make the changes he should have made. The second quote referred to this portion of part of your post where you claim to have some clairvoyance in knowing the reading habits of a LotR movie fan vs. a HP movie fan where you stated:Talimon posted
And I do have to say this: it's not nearly as appealing to non-readers as FotR is. Which, ultimately, results in less people reading the book.Sounds to me like you first express your own biased and nonfactual opinion and then follow it up with a statement where you speak for all the HP and LotR fans. Maybe I just didn't read it right. ;)

[PRH]

Here's an opinion for you, mine!:

I saw the first HP opening day. Never read the book. I though it was visually quite nice, and the casting was great. The idea is pretty good and had huge potential. Unfortunately the screenplay (plot/dialog) just bit and the acting was pretty lacking too (mostly having so little to work with I think). I wanted to like it but I came away with the opinion that it was...okay.

Well, fool me once, I went to the second one on Saturday (not quite opening day this time). I thought it was probably a little better in it's effects, and the action was better choreographed. This time, the plot was only slightly better but the dialog and acting took a major dive. What an utter waste of Jason Issacs and Kenneth Branaugh. I was sitting there...I just wanted it to END! I don't think I've ever walked out on a movie in the theater, but I was actually considering it.

I have little doubt that if I had read these books I'd be reading in everything between the lines and having a ball watching the movies. But as a non-reader I found them to be just a kiddie movie. A dumbed-down kiddie movie at that -- not at all like the Pixar types kid movies that an adult can thoroughly enjoy. I feel bad for the kids. They will fall in love with these movies and may hope as adults to enjoy nostalgic viewing but they will find themselves asking "what was I thinking?"

I have to wonder how the box office stats between FOTR and HP would look if all the tickets sold to under-16 year olds were factored out. You'd have to somehow factor out all the adult tickets sold to those being dragged along by their kids too though.

Let me restate -- I wanted to like these, I really did. I just could not.

[Rogue666666]

Lets keep this simple. ALL LOTR MATERIAL INCLUDING BOTH THE BOOKS AND MOVIES IS FAR HIGHER THAN ANYTHING HARRY POTTER. PEROID. I dont know how you can compare the two. If you were 6 years old and the level of reading was to difficult for you in the LOTR then maybe you could think that Harry Potter is better than LOTR. But anyone with a brain only has to read the books to realize that everything about Tolkien's trilogy is by far deeper and more amazing than anything Harry Potter.


Harry Potter is whats popular NOW. The LOTR has been popular for nearly half a century. where will Harry Potter be in fifty years?

Hopefully, dead. So that I can be spared having to point out such an obvoius fact.


Sorry if this seems some what viscous. Its simply the way I feel.

[Sam_Gamgee]

i do enojoy HP but LOTR owns harry potter.......... with no dispute HP is some good reading and good movie watching but seriously the qaulity the content the story the carachters the description the details in LOTR own harry potter no contest.

[Talimon]

And no, this doesn't have anything to do with the source material. It's just the simple fact that CC can't stand the pressure, and PJ can.

The use of the word "fact" there isn't particularly literal. Though in my opinion that is a fact, I am by no means implying there can't be other opinions here. To me it's just painfully obvious that CC wanted to (and should have) made changes, but didn't.

And I do have to say this: it's not nearly as appealing to non-readers as FotR is.

I'll concede on this point, though I do think this is a fairly obvious statement, whether you have read the book or not. Let me restate what I said there, or at least what I meant to say: Since it's not as good a movie as FotR (in my opinion), it will by nature not be as appealing to non-readers. My point was that, from a non-readers perspective, there is very little here that would encourage me to pick up the book. That is subjective statement, but one that I believe is true.

[*Lady Arwen*]

I really don't know.
They both cut and changed things in the movies

[FallenOne]

I have seen both movies, but never read any of the books. I liked the LOTR movie a lot more that the Harry Potter movies.

Maybe it has something to do with my age...

[MacAddict]

I've never watched or read any harry potter, But I see it as a LOTR rip-off and that litte CGI guy with the big ears is a Yoda ripp-off. I can't stand Harry Potter, Its just fun to spoof.

~MacAddict

[Rogue666666]

I'm telling you there is no COMPARISON! The books are SO MUCH DEEPER! I KNOW I"VE ALREADY TOLD YOU ALL THIS, BUT LOTR IS BETTER, NO DUSCUSSION.

And if the moon is a human buglight, then landing on it was quite an accomplishment.

[MacAddict]

Yes it was quite an accomplishment. But if it weren't for spacesuits then the sheer power of bug-lite/moon would have killed the them. But that has nothing to do with LOTR or HarryP. *never mind*.

~MacAddict

[alf48]

I have read both HP (all 4 books that were released) and LotR..
and watched the movies too..

I did enjoy the HP movie and books, but I would enjoy watching the movie for more than 1 once..
I did watch it only once thus far.. and it was 1-2 months after release.. no rush..
I will watch Chamber of secrets too.. but without the anticipation of TTT!!!

IMO HP as a story is for younger people.. However, the story of HP will change over the next 3 books.. the story will be more intense, and darker.. I like book 3-4 better.. more scary.. :) Will probably make better movies out of them.

LotR is a story filled with depth.. and so so many more themes.. Definately not a story for younger folks..
I read LotR for the 1st time in my teens (about 10 years ago).. I honestly did not like it then,
After the movie, I decided to pick the books up again.. WoW.. I really had a great time reading the books.. I guess my mind changed and could appreciated the depth of the books.. :)

[joxy]

Originally posted by alf48

After the movie, I decided to pick the books up again....I really had a great time reading the books....
And what did you think about the changes, and having to get used to people and actions different from those you'd seen?

[Niniel]

I saw HP and the Chamber of Secrets yesterday. It was very cool (much better than part 1). Of course the HP film sticks much closer to the book than does LOTR. There are only some abbreviations to make the film shorter, but no added scenes that aren't in the book. I don't think that is per se better than the sort of adaptation LOTR is. When you're watching HP, there is no element of surprise, it is clear from the beginning what will happen and sometimes that makes it a bit dull. I like the way LOTR is done better.

[Nefmariel]

Fellowship of the ring

[Talimon]

I don't think that is per se better than the sort of adaptation LOTR is. When you're watching HP, there is no element of surprise, it is clear from the beginning what will happen and sometimes that makes it a bit dull. I like the way LOTR is done better.

I complete agree on this point.

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

Honestly, I voted for HP, but I didnt enjoy doing it. I hated that movie and disliked the books, but the films were in reality very close to the storyline, unlike LOTR.

Although I did like LOTR much better, both the movie and the books.

[Odo Proudfoot]

I have read the first three HP books, and seen the video of the first movie.

I have read LotR probably 10 times, and seen FotR 7 times, TTT once.

HP stays very close to the book, but that is not really a problem because it is possible to make a 2 hour movie and incorporate everything fom the book. Cramming FotR or TTT in 3 hour movies is utterly impossible without cutting loads and loads of material. PJ therefore had a much, much tougher job in reworking the story so that it could be made into a movie at all.

In how far he succeeded to make a good movie and at the same time not butcher the book is anybody's opinion. Speaking for myself, I very much enjoy his movies although I have some issues with a few of his decisions. But I am very happy that I have the chance to go and see his films, for which he deserves my admiration. The book is of course still there and will never go away.

fG

[joxy]

Originally posted by faded_Glory
Cramming FotR or TTT in 3 hour movies is utterly impossible without cutting loads and loads of material. PJ therefore had a much, much tougher job in reworking the story so that it could be made into a movie at all.
So he made his much much tougher job even tougher by cramming in a whole lot of what is purely his own invention? How bright is that?

[Odo Proudfoot]

Originally posted by joxy
So he made his much much tougher job even tougher by cramming in a whole lot of what is purely his own invention? How bright is that?

I am trying to think what in the FotR is purely PJ's own invention? He expands certain elements of the book for the purpose of character development (EE scene in the Green Dragon, for instance) or exposition (dialogue between Gandalf and Elrond). Likewise the staircase scene in Moria, it may not be exactly as in the book, but it builds on what's in there, and personally I was very impressed by the visuals - a film like this needs the eye candy too. Origin of the Uruk-hai? Inspired by the book, interpreted by PJ in his own way. Serves to illustrate why Uruk-hai and orcs are different, and anyway doesn't take up too much screen time. Love scene between Arwen and Aragorn - an explanation of Arwen's choice is essential for understanding what is going on, and doing it this way seems better to me than having them discuss it over a cup of tea!

Maybe I'm missing something.

Some things in FotR can be cut cleanly without leaving loose ends (Bombadil for instance). Others cannot. You can't cut Glorfindel and keep the Ford scene without introducing a horse so that Frodo gets split up from the others. The solution of introducing Arwen at that point is clever and works for the movie.

I guess I am trying to say that adapting a long book to a shorter movie is not just a matter of dropping scenes and characters, and stitching the remaining bits together. You need to rework what is left for it to make sense as a narrative and as entertainment. You either get a movie that is in some respects different from the book, or you don't get a movie at all.

Now, I have some more reservations about some of the inventions in TTT. I think the 'Aragorn over the cliff' scene is unnecessary, and the point PJ is trying to make there could have been made without deviating that far from the book. On the other hand, I wait until I've seen RotK to decide if the Faramir/Osgiliath change makes sense or not - right now I don't see it, but there may be better reasons that we don't have access to as yet.

fG

[joxy]

Originally posted by faded_Glory ....the staircase scene in Moria, it may not be exactly as in the book, but it builds on what's in there, and personally I was very impressed by the visuals
Origin of the Uruk-hai? Inspired by the book, interpreted by PJ in his own way. Serves to illustrate why Uruk-hai and orcs are different.
You can't cut Glorfindel and keep the Ford scene without introducing a horse so that Frodo gets split up from the others. The solution of introducing Arwen at that point is clever and works for the movie. <the stairs>It's not in the book at all; I like it, very much as it happens, but I would happily have done without it for the sake of having something "genuine". Certainly the visual is a major element of the film, but T provided plenty of scenarios for that.
<orc-birthing>Inspired, by a brief comment, with no need for interpretation or indeed for being shown at all- and then so absurdly. To illustrate WHY they are different? How is it supposed to do that? Anyway it doesn't do it!
<flight to the ford>So why cut Glorfindel? Just because Bakshi did? If the Arwen substitution is clever I need a new dictionary, and if it works for the film I've been watching a completely different film.
"But seriously", the books contain so much material that almost any innovation could find a justification, so that one could say it was OK because it has some foundation in the books. That reasoning just isn't good enough to account for many of the inventions, which, frankly, often seem to have been included purely to satisfy PJ's curious fancies.

[lightingstrike]

Well if you like movies from books to stick closely to the book they were made from, the obvious answer is HP. But, I liked FoTR better because it took more risks and came out as an overall better movie. Of course, you could go on and on about all the little things that were put in or taken out, bu t overall, I liked FoTR.

[Viewman]

I like lotr best ofcaurse hehe but i think harry potter is good to :)
And a lot easyer to read :)

[Eledhwen]

Having read Christopher Lee's autobiography, I realised that we have largely forgotten how bad film adaptations of books used to be! Sometimes the only bit that was 'based on the book by ...' was the name and, hopefully, the lifestyle of the protagonist; and the period in which the film was set.

Compared to past adaptations, both HP and LotR were very faithful. However; I think that, because of the sheer genius of Tolkien's work and the reverence in which it is held, there was a strong hope among purists that the film would rely more on Tolkien's brilliance than Peter Jackson's. As the films went on, Jackson's little additions became more and more obvious until, in the extended edition of the final film, members of the Fellowship were behaving in ways that would have appalled JRRT. There is some consolation that many of these scenes didn't make the cinema cut.

The directors of Harry Potter are somewhat hampered in the licence they can take with the story, as the author is still alive and could severely dent box office takings if she gave a negative review.