Romão 2,274 Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 One thing that the HP did perfectly was the casting. It was absolutlyu flawless. From the child actors to the adults. Flawless. Completlu coherent with the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,207 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 I still say Emma Watson should have gotten an Oscar nominations.But HP better than FOTR, acting-wise? Not in my book. HP had a truly great cast, but FOTR one of the best I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 At least both films had better special effects than Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.The first Harry Potter film also had better acting, a better script, better music and much better pacing than AOTC and FOTR. So I'd say that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone still comes out on top, no matter what high tech gee gawd stuff these guys throw into their movies.Nope, maybe pacing, just maybe. But FOTR had better acting (Gandalf, Bilbo anyone? ), better script and a much better story.Morn, do you have stock in TTT or something? Geez... How is it more innovative for hundreds of characters to be programmed to fight different than AOTC's stuff? You just seem like you want LOTR to be so much better than anything else.Firstly, it will have more objects on screen due to the fact that most of the fighting won't be by big machines, secondly it's harder to program people than it is for droids and clones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCFKevin 0 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Firstly, it will have more objects on screen Ohhh, well, that settles it. It'll be a much better movie with much better FX because of that. Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Hey, it relates to detail, it's really much more of a big deal than it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 At least both films had better special effects than Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.The first Harry Potter film also had better acting, a better script, better music and much better pacing than AOTC and FOTR. So I'd say that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone still comes out on top, no matter what high tech gee gawd stuff these guys throw into their movies.Nope, maybe pacing, just maybe. But FOTR had better acting (Gandalf, Bilbo anyone? ), better script and a much better story.FOTR's story was so dull and episodic and un-important, that you could literally take one of the adventures out of the movie and plug it into another section and it would not affect the film in anyway. There was no character development, and the story didn't build on what happened earlier.Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Character developement isn't a necessity, though it is nice. But the character interactions and the characters themselves are brilliant.Though the 2nd part is not strickly true, it's a journey, what do you expect. But the whole set up of the ring and sauron is extremely interesting and brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross 1 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 STaefan i didn't spaeked of the balrog :? Steffy, can I call you Staefan from now on? Seriously.-ROSS, with thinks that quote looks like Latin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,274 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 I still think HP had better cast and acting than FOTR. Both were very good in that department, but HP was better. Anyone else thinks Elijah Wood was a bad choice for Frodo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Who would be better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,274 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,795 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 STaefan i didn't spaeked of the balrog :? Steffy, can I call you Staefan from now on? Seriously.-ROSS, with thinks that quote looks like LatinI apologize. But you understood it anyways. SO STOP BEING A PAIN IN THE NECK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Who else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,274 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 I'm no casting director and it's pretty hard to cast Frodo, all I know is that I really disliked Elijah Wood in the role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,274 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 I'm no casting director and it's pretty hard to cast Frodo, all I know is that I really disliked Elijah Wood in the role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,795 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Marian:Ok there was no plains (but i hope you know what scene it is - from the trailer)Gungan horn: mooooooooooIs that an army or some goo? (OK it is very far- but then, expect that from TTT, if 10000 people are going to be in scene)Look at the detailed army. (Yes of course, the 15 REAL people that are in close up.And these pic does not show what i really wanted to see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now