C
Callan
Guest
hehe, playstation has people brainwashed.
-
This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:
1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.
2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.
3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.
Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.
Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.
Thank you!
harry potter Vs LOTR
- Thread starter M.Schumacher
- Start date
yes Ps2 does, GCN well who knows what they are up to i mean physically it is a better machine than PS2 but there is NO marketing, that is why they are losing 
Anyway
St Johnstone for the first time in its polling history IS LOSING!!! come on guys at least make it 2nd Not even Harry Potter can beat St Johnstone!
Anyway
St Johnstone for the first time in its polling history IS LOSING!!! come on guys at least make it 2nd
Not even Harry Potter can beat St Johnstone! realmadridcf
Senior Squad
well actually you cant compare this 2 story....
Harry Pothead is childish
LotR is more for grownS
Harry Pothead is childish
LotR is more for grownS
I read them all. I read a lot, since I learned how to. I even sort of like reviewed 1984 in this very forum a couple years back.
But I said you looked like you were 10. Turns out there's no big difference in reality, so it's all good. LOTR is too adult for you anyway, so stick with the Harry Potters and you'll be fine for now.
Later on in your life you'll get the need for other sorts of literature and you'll look back and remember this little argument and understand everything.
Wow, wasn't that so Matrix like?
C
C-B
Guest
its a real good read, no at crap the films and merchandise made it out to be...
do what i did read the book and watch the movie, you can't critzise the film without getting the impression HP is childish, becuase it's not.
C
C-B
Guest
I didn't either... it's so friggin complicated that i didn't try.
But many lotr readers say the movie was spot on so i won't bother trying to read it again
C
C-B
Guest
well that was very intriging 
But LOTR is on a totally different league, Alex. You can't even compare the two; how Tolkien's masterpiece deals with themes that have been on our subconscious since we are men, to intricate issues that a kid will have trouble understanding, various sub-levels of interpretation, whereas HP is so much more child-driven: from the clear-cut story - simplistic enough for everyone to understand - to the wizard/witch/spell imagery, present in every single traditional kid stories. It's a good book for children that also appeals to some adult audiences, but still a kid's plot. The movies are awful, btw. So childish that I can't watch more than 5 minutes.
I hope that was more Hugo-like to you, Alex.
C
C-B
Guest
The movies cut soooo much from the book.
Also Dobby was a disgrace.
Also Dobby was a disgrace.
Chelsea2001
Senior Squad
neva sin a harry potter or LOTR movie, so St Johnstone i guess for me
Ahh much better, giving reasons for your opinionsOriginally posted by INFESTA
But LOTR is on a totally different league, Alex. You can't even compare the two; how Tolkien's masterpiece deals with themes that have been on our subconscious since we are men, to intricate issues that a kid will have trouble understanding, various sub-levels of interpretation, whereas HP is so much more child-driven: from the clear-cut story - simplistic enough for everyone to understand - to the wizard/witch/spell imagery, present in every single traditional kid stories. It's a good book for children that also appeals to some adult audiences, but still a kid's plot. The movies are awful, btw. So childish that I can't watch more than 5 minutes.
I hope that was more Hugo-like to you, Alex.
But I still disagree, except that the HP movies are a disgrace
Ill explain: I agree that LOTR goes much deeper than HP (altho HPs story lines are very well thought out, and are often in glimpses a satirical look at our society), but when I read books, I often do so, purely for a good fun read. HP is easy to read, easy to get into, and I enjoyed it the whole time I was reading it. It wasnt meant to be overly complex, because it was meant to appeal to all ages. I do htink HP is more complex than your average childrens book, but its still for the main part, very simple...However whilst it is simple, its still easy and fun for everyone and anyone to read...
So I think HP is better, simply because it appeals to a much larger audience than LOTR
(Honestly I dont think either are better, and dont think they should be compared...but I htought Id just contradict you because I can )...Now the movies...I didnt mind hte HP movies, but only because I loved the books...I wasnt happy with the parts the movies missed etc, but I liked the way the characters and worlds that Id read about were brought to life
...LOTRs movies were MUCH MUCH better....Originally posted by Alex
HP is easy to read, easy to get into, and I enjoyed it the whole time I was reading it. It wasnt meant to be overly complex, because it was meant to appeal to all ages. I do htink HP is more complex than your average childrens book, but its still for the main part, very simple...However whilst it is simple, its still easy and fun for everyone and anyone to read...
So I think HP is better, simply because it appeals to a much larger audience than LOTR
Appealing to a larger audience doesn't make a book any better, imho; it just makes it prone to have a bigger revenue later on.
But I agree with you to some extent: HP is more complex than your ordinary children's book, but still is a children's book.
It don't think it'll go down on history as a literature classic - more like a sophisticated and overly hyped Enid Blyton-type-of book collection. Whereas LOTR is already a part of our history one can't erase. It came and it stayed, surpassing its author life span. We're yet to see how things will go with HP...
I'd also like to say LOTR isn't an easy read, but it sure is a rewarding one, just like all the great books I've read. It doesn't focus on children nor is it aimed at them, from an audience point of view.
Ultimately, I agree with you on one of the main issues: both books can't be compared - they play on totally separate leagues, aiming at distinct audiences and have a different glow and feel, deal with separate issues and, above all, one of them marks us for life.
(Just finished watching the extended DVD version of 'The Two Towers'
)