With just two more Harry Potter movies to go, and two Hobbit movies on the way it's time to return to that question that was asked in offices, schoolyards and prisons (maybe)across the world between Christmas 2001 and New year 2004! Which films are better; The Lord of The Rings or Harry Potter? Now let's be honest here, the first two Harry Potter films were garbage. No wait, the first one was average to be fair, the second, complete unmitigated garbage! So putting those 2 and the far superior third film against the three rings movies is a bit like getting Alan Carr in the ring with Mike Tyson! Oh hold on... now there's something to put in the Hangover sequel! So I've allowed you to vote on the first few and separately for the rest. Before you vote think on this; do you really see a Harry Potter film winning an Oscar for Best film? You know you don't. 
Well man saying the first two movies sucked isn'. xktl fair since they adressed an younger audience then yourself. But I agree there is no competion between the to "series" 'cause Tolkien rules. Have to admit I love the Potterconcept though. Think the last two are gonna rock. None the less question is can they compeet with the hobbit.
ReplyDeleteHello there Met.
ReplyDeleteI do know what you mean, but good is good and bad is bad. I remember I had this problem with the reviews at the time, which basically said it was average, but gave it 4 or 5 stars becase it's aimed at kids.
Pixar movies are aimed at kids but Toy Story, Monsters' inc are very good films. Ditto The Lion King beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty. Then you have the likes of the first two Harry Potters which take the view that they are "only aimed at kids" so don't have to put as much effort into being good films.
Whatever you do the first rule is make it good. I know plenty of kids who can't sit through either of the first two Potter Movies beause they are so long and dull.
Lord of the Rings made good films first then worried about being good Rings adaptations