Harry Potter spider scene!

[Greymantle]

This is totally irrelevant...and maybe someone has pointed it out already... but the new Harry Potter movie does a brilliant rip off of the FotR Moria scene.
Damn, I'm late for Precalc, I'll have to revise this later. Suffice it to say that as Harry and Ron are being surrounded by spiders climbing down from the walls in a darkly lit cave, they stand back to back defiantly brandishing their wands in an exact replica of the Moria scene....then the hordes of spiders surround them and the music stops, and the spiders suddenly scatter as a bright light fills the cave, coming from a neighboring tunnel.... I was dying with laughter. Anyway. I didn't explain that very well, but I'm late, so bear with me. Anyone else notice that?

[Mablung]

Yeah but the big spider has nothing on the Balrog.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Greymantle
....the new Harry Potter movie does a brilliant rip off of the FotR Moria scene.
Excellent, now can someone say which came first of the two brother trolls, the one who falls to a wand up the nose in the Hogwarts bathroom, or the one who falls to an arrow in the head in the Chamber of Mazarbul?!

[Talimon]

Originally posted by joxy
Excellent, now can someone say which came first of the two brother trolls, the one who falls to a wand up the nose in the Hogwarts bathroom, or the one who falls to an arrow in the head in the Chamber of Mazarbul?!

Actually, considering that pre-production on FotR began late 1998 to early 1999, I'd say the LotR one came first. ;)

[Dr. Ransom]

Yes, when I went to see FOTR, I overheard some idoits talking about how LOTR was a complete ripoff of Harry Potter... Harry Potter fans are something else. Of course, they always say the LOTR fans make trekkies look sane, but yeah, that's cause we're all nuts. Potter fans wouldn't be arguing about different lan. and maps, and history of their world. If anything though, I think HP is a ripoff more of Chronicles than LOTR. I mean, come one, England, Trainstation, parrellel world, with magic and talking animals. Yeah, ok.

[Talimon]

Nearly all fantasy is in one sense or another a rip-off of LotR or Narnia. It's just the way they add things together and combine them that keep things fresh. I'm generalizing, of course, but it never ceases to amaze me how much unoriginal fantasy/sci-fi literature is released. Then again, this is a genre whos very existence relies on originality, so I suppose it all works out in the end.

[Orodreth]

This is just my opinion, I hope it doesn't offend anyone deeply.
Lord of the Rings = GOOD!!!
Harry Potter = BAD!!!
Not quite relivant in comparing the two, but I needed to say it.

[Carantalath]

I went to see the Harry Potter movie with my friends and one of them doesn't like spiders so she started squealing and twitching in the theater. I was trying to get her to calm down so I didn't see all of the spider scene but anyway, I have to look in the book when I can find it at home. I'm pretty sure that they didn't mean to copy FOTR but if so, it was a very similar scene in the book, if I remember correctly (Hey, it was about two years ago when I read the book so I'm a little rusty.).

I can't believe how many people here hate Harry Potter. I love Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, though Lord of the Rings is my favorite.

[Athelas]

It was choreographed the same way, but I think it was just coincidance. That scenario is a pretty old movie cliche; the heroes are surrounded by minor bad guys, but they all split when "Big Ed" shows up, raising the fear ante on just how bad "Big Ed" is if even these guys are a 'sceered o' him. Being rescued by a beat up old car is not quite as romantic as being rescued by a centaur, but you take what you can get.

[Aerin]

If you want to really nit-pick, even LotR is a rip-off... of the old Norse mythologies, mostly. But back to the point of this thread... ;)

It's just like Athelas said:
scenario is a pretty old movie cliche; the heroes are surrounded by minor bad guys, but they all split when "Big Ed" shows up, raising the fear ante on just how bad "Big Ed" is if even these guys are a 'sceered o' him.

In movies, at least one of the climatic points is when the protagonists are surrounded, or find themselves in a nearly impossible situation, provided by the antagonists. Just because FotR's Moria Scene is very similar to the HP scene, doesn't mean squat. The movie Quigley Down Under had the same... Braveheart... the Patriot... Men in Black II... and dozens of others that I can't think of at the moment.

I'm not exactly certain if the Forbidden Forest scene in the HP movie was just how it was in the book, but in filmography, it is much harder to create the sense of psychological terror (some movies are that way - Signs was one, and I hear the Ring another.. some examples of modern films), than it is to use more of a situational kind of fear.
To someone sitting in the (usually) comfortable movie theatre seats, a group (whether it be Harry and Ron, or the Fellowship) getting attacked by the "bad-guys" may not be all too scary; the same group being surrounded in a seemingly hopeless situation would create more terror in the audience.

For me, at least, I know the spiders in the Forbidden Forest scared everything out of me, because I am extremely afraid of spiders... so the terror of poor Ron's situation wasn't lost on me, hehe. My family can tell you how I almost started climbing my seat when the spiders were after them...:eek:

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Carantalath

I can't believe how many people here hate Harry Potter. I love Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, though Lord of the Rings is my favorite.

I love the books, though I don't think they can hold a candle to LotR. I'm just not a big fan of the movies. They all too often stick to the books at the expense of the film. The scene in the Forbidden Forest is just one example. It does very little to further the story, and what plot points it does convey could have easily been conveyed otherwise.

[T'Vog]

Went to see Chamber of Secrets with my Dad (he and I products of the eighties). Ron starts complaining about spiders and says something along the lines of, "Spiders? Why'd it have to be spiders?"

Dad leans over. "Snakes. Why's it always have to be snakes?"

I lean back. "Asps. Very dangerous. You go first, Indy."

And then my sister rolled her eyes and sighed at both of us...

:p

But personally, I like the LotR movies a little better than the Harry Potter ones. They're cut a lot less from the books, though they do replace Glorfindel with Arwen... I sorta liked the Harry Potter books, but Tolkien (as well as Timothy Zahn's Star Wars books) are better.

[Aerin]

*stares* You're saying PJ's LotR is *closer* to the books than Columbus's HP??? Whoo my.....

Let me state, first off, that I am a huge fan of both authors - Tolkien being, of course, my favourite of the two - and I am also a fan of the movies (LotR being on account of a stand-alone movie, not connected to Tolkien's magnificent work ;)).

The Harry Potter movies are very close to the books... I don't think I'll get into my "Why PJ's LotR is nowhere near the books" rant in here. ;) True, there are things missing, but what movie version of a book doesn't have "parts missing"? Even the fabulous A&E production of Pride and Prejudice differs from the book in many areas, and that's one of the closest book-to-movies I have seen!

I'm just not a big fan of the movies. They all too often stick to the books at the expense of the film. The scene in the Forbidden Forest is just one example. It does very little to further the story, and what plot points it does convey could have easily been conveyed otherwise.

That's fine is you're not a big fan of the HP movies; to each his own. But they do not "all too often stick to the books at the expense of the film" - instead, the movies are close enough to the books, to use a cliche, to "bring the story to life". Even my father, who is extremely finnicky in his movie tastes, loves the Harry Potter movies because they're so true to Rowling's books.

Frankly, I don't see why so many people have such a problem with HP; it's not a rip-off of LotR, it's not just a "children's movie"... it's a decent movie that, for once, sticks closely to the original text, and it fun to watch.

And btw, T'Vog, I don't know if you've ever watched "Whose Line Is It Anyway?", but there was one episode where Colin (I think it was him) had to pretend to be a weather-reporter, and was acting as Indiana Jones - he said "Shakes... why did it have to be shakes?" :D

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
....what plot points it does convey could have easily been conveyed otherwise.
"could have been" - I never thought I'd read those words from Talimon!
How many times have I tried them, and been shot down, by T and his co-religionists?!

[Talimon]

Originally posted by joxy
"could have been" - I never thought I'd read those words from Talimon!
How many times have I tried them, and been shot down, by T and his co-religionists?!

If you've read the book and seen the film, joxy, you'll know what I'm talking about. It's a scene that, at that point in the film, adds absolutely nothing. Not even dramatic tension, in my opinion. There is quite a big difference between saying that to cut a scene would make the film better (what I'm saying here) and to say that to add some scenes that no one has ever seen would make the film better (which is what many "purists" have offered). All I'm saying is that a particularly long scene could have been outright cut and the movie would have been much better for it. Only my opinion, of course.

But they do not "all too often stick to the books at the expense of the film" - instead, the movies are close enough to the books, to use a cliche, to "bring the story to life". Even my father, who is extremely finnicky in his movie tastes, loves the Harry Potter movies because they're so true to Rowling's books.

Frankly, I don't see why so many people have such a problem with HP; it's not a rip-off of LotR, it's not just a "children's movie"... it's a decent movie that, for once, sticks closely to the original text, and it fun to watch.

I never claimed it was a "just a childrens movie", though I certainly do not think it's nearly as entertaining as FotR. In terms of charachter development and depth I get bored with it pretty quickly, but that is just me. It is merely a "decent" movie, and the fact that it sticks to the book does not excuse this at all. Maybe we have different priorities, but for me a good movie comes first and foremost. Granted, perhaps for you a good movie isn't the same as it is for me, but from a purely theoretical standpoint I still hold by that claim. There is no point in making a film adaptation if you are going to do it at the expense of the film. For me, many scenes in the HP films simply do not need to be there, and do not offer the film anything. Yes, I can go home and say, "That was 'true' adaptation," but you wont find me seeing the film again on that sole basis. The same goes with some of those other adaptations you mentioned, "Pride and Prejudice" for instance. I'm sure it's a very true adaptation, but would you watch it again?

[Aerin]

I've watched Pride and Prejudice three times, and would have watched it more if I had not needed to return so soon.

To my mind, a "true adaptation" of a book is not merely the words into pictures on a screen; but rather, capturing the essence of the book; the nuances that create the atmosphere; the author's vision, if you will.

More to the point, what constitutes a "good movie"? It is "high-flying action" with Matrix-like stunts? Or a deep, moving story that leaves you crying? Perhaps something that makes you laugh?
A "good movie" differs for every person; there isn't really any generalization one can make. For instance, if you were the kind who enjoys an action/adventure, and I a romantic comedy, we would not agree on what a good movie is.

I believe the scenes in Harry Potter I & II were there to create the atmosphere in which the story (note: I mean the storyline from the books) takes place. The spider scene, which seems, in your opinion, to be completely unnecessary, added some danger and added a few points tothe climax scale - in the context of the movie.

Just out of curiosity: which scenes in Harry Potter do you deem unnecessary?

[Talimon]

I haven't seen either of the HP films enough times to name specific scenes off the top of my head, but I remember it just being a lot of small bits here and there. Mostly, I'd say, the film focused far too much on plot exposition, something I felt really brought it to a complete stop at many points. With FotR there is a constant sense of urgency, of movement, of change. The plot is always moving forward with each scene. I don't care too much about this arguement to actually go rent the film and pick out specific scenes, but there are many bits here and there that in my opinion really shouldn't have been there.

As for 'Pride and Prejudice', I honestly can't comment, as I haven't seen it. But I will point out two things. One, it's a 300 page book spread over nearly 4 hours, and two, it's a drama set in hardly distant universe. Compare this to a 400-500 page book spread over less then 3 hours in a fantasy setting. Add to this the fact that we have one of the most complex plots in modern fiction, and I think the comparisons die rather quickly. I haven't read 'Pride and Prejudice', but from what I've heard somehow I doubt the material being worked with is quite as difficult as Tolkien. And, I might add, 'Pride and Prejudice' never showed in the threatres and never cost $300 million to make. It cattered to a very specific audience, while FotR had to cater to a much wider one.

[lightingstrike]

I would just like to say this and I am sure that about every one in the entire world would agree with me on this. I am a huge HP fan and have read each book around 4-5 times, butI was very disappointed in the graphics in the movies. But, when I saw FoTR on DVD, I was overwelmed by the graphics, so yeah, I like LOTR I whole lot better too. Oh yeah, the message boards are cooler for Tolkein then they are for Harry Potter!!:cool:

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
If you've read the book and seen the film, joxy, you'll know what I'm talking about. It's a scene that, at that point in the film, adds absolutely nothing.
I have read, and I have seen, and in fact I could have done without the F Forest scene in the same way as I DO do without Crickhollow, and COULD have done without the "falling staircase", so I am more or less with you on this one.
The scene shows us what unicorns and centaurs look like, it tells us something about Draco, and more about Harry, and gives an idea of Voldemort, but as you say that COULD have been done in other ways. Its plot line is really intended for a later film, so if HP&PS is to be taken on its own, like FOTR, then it isn't necessary and is probably irrelevant.