Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:37 am
by Revan
Why is it... that people didn't complain when Lord of the Rings had parts skipped out, and said "Oh, but they couldn't done that, there wasn't enough time". yet when it comes to Harry Potter, people just expect everything in the books to be in the film... hmmm...
heh
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:29 pm
by CovenantJr
Because LOTR, for its myriad faults, is a work of depth and complexity. Harry Potter isn't. If LOTR is roast beef and yorkshire pudding with assorted fresh vegetables, Potter is a glass of water
Anyway, I seem to recall there
was some objection to missing bits of the LOTR films.
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:28 pm
by Revan
CovenantJr wrote:Because LOTR, for its myriad faults, is a work of depth and complexity. Harry Potter isn't. If LOTR is roast beef and yorkshire pudding with assorted fresh vegetables, Potter is a glass of water
ROTFLMAO!!! So true!
CovenantJr wrote:Anyway, I seem to recall there was some objection to missing bits of the LOTR films.
Very little though.
Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 3:14 pm
by theDespiser
yeah, see, the stuff they took out of LOTR was replaced nicely, dealt with nicely, and glossed over so the movie was fluid and still explained stuff...
harry potter didnt have that
Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:35 am
by Revan
Very true also
