i just saw harry potter 4 today....it was tight dude u guys that havent seen it should go watch it...dubledores so mean.....><......ron looks funny during the yue ball.....ron and harry gets smacked on the head.......those were spoilers
this movie looks neat.
i never read the fourth book ever since....
but i like how this one might surpass the pg rating in australia 0_o
I can't believe I have stained mt eyes by watching that predictable thing you guys call a film. I feel so violated
I would love to be happy, but unfortunately I'm too busy being awesome and kicking your ass at everything
That movie was perverted. Exampes:
1. At the yule ball, Hermione walked down in her dress then met her date. As they began to walk together the guy looked to his right, with what can only be described as a blatent "Ohh yeah, I'm getting some tonight" look. The fact that Hermione is 14, and he is at least 17 (But looks much older) makes this much worse.
2. The bath scene. At first it wasn't so bad, just a bit of flirting, the ghost teasing because he was naked. By the end of the scene she was sat next to him obviously fiddling around under the water. She may only be a ghost, but that really isn't the point.
EDIT: Oh, but I did like the movie.
Well, actually, Hermione is 15. Though that doesn't change much. She was born in September of the year BEFORE Harry, 1979.Originally Posted by Craig
I loved it. Best out of the four movies, I think.
I'm perfectly fine with whatever they cut out from the books for the movies. I've had problems with this before, where the book was adapted in an unsatisfactory way. But with this movie I thought they did a superb job of cutting out what needed to be cut but still keeping all the really significant stuff as well as making everything fit together nicely. I'm glad the elfs were cut.
Ralph Fiennes as great as Voldemort. Which may or may not be a good thing. Aren't we supposed to dislike the bad guy? I think I just might love him. Miranda Richardson was also really great as Rita Skeeter. Nailed it perfectly.
All around the acting was much better than the first two movies, and I'm really glad that Ron got to do a bit more in this movie than just look freaked out all the time. I really liked how they handled the death of Cedric. I got teary-eyed.
The only thing that bothered me a bit was Dumbledore. Dumbledore seemed...not Dumbledore-like. Did anyone else feel this way? I didn't like his portrayal.
<B><U>Highlight of the Movie:</b></u>
-Radiohead's Johnny Greenwood & Phil Selway making a cameo in the rock band during the Yule Ball.
I cried at the movie, my friend was growling at me because I was whinying as in "awwww...."
But I wished there was a little less bubbles in the bath tub scene.
Was it me or was Emma Watson gorguous at the Yule ball?
The only thing I found awkward is that Ron, and Harry much more so than Hermione looked like they were 17 and the twins looked like they were in their twenties.
I got back from this movie a few hours ago, and I must say I really enjoyed it. The action scenes (Particuarly the dragon fight) were very cool, and it had perhaps the best part in the entire series: Where Moody turns Malfoy into a ferret. That was great. Still, it was rather annoying that they took so much out. But then, they couldn't make the movie much longer than they did, so they really had to cut out the unnecessary parts.
Whoever said that Dumbledore was mean, I agree entirely. That actor is terrible.
That was cool, but didnt they have Bill Nighy (Love Actually, Underworld) as the frontman?
I would love to be happy, but unfortunately I'm too busy being awesome and kicking your ass at everything
cough...(thus ensues these 'non existent' parallels apparently)...
1. Wormtongue ......Wormtail (both cowardly servants to their masters)
2. Dark Lord Volemort..........Dark Lord Sauron
3. Dumbledore ......Gandalf (both tall wizards, white beards you know the business)
4. Harry potter and Ron Weasley.....Frodo and sam
5. Dementors..........Black riders (lol they look so similar it's a joke)
6. Harry's invisibilty cloak.......Elvaan cloak worn by frodo to make him appear invisible
7. Harry's parents murdered , orphan......Frodo's parents drown, orphan
8. ARAGOG GIANT SPIDER..........SHELOB GIANT SPIDER
9. Dobby (annoyig creature speaks in third person)....Gollum (same)
10. Fred and George Weasley (comedy aspects)...Merry and Pippin
11. Legendary sword of Gryfindor .......Anduril the legendary sword that was once broken
12. Harry's hurting scar on head......Frodo's hurting scar from morgul blade
13. Forbidden forest..........old forest near the shire (both full of 'mystical/evil' creatures
I could go on...
conclusion.....how wrong could you have been by saying there were no parallels!?
Yes they are different types of fantasy, however it is fairly blatant that JK Rowling has taken loads of lotr features and incorporated a more immature, basic storyline to appeal to a young audience; an audience she knows will wack out the cash for her 'unparalleled' (in your opinion) series of books.
Rowling obviously couldnt handle a more epic scale to her books, thus of course the worlds wot be similar...too many obvious links would gather attention and cause copyright issues.
please try to explain these links and prove me wrong if u can
coincidence? i think not.
sig in development
Tone down the arrogance. BtV is a mod... remember that.
Tall, white-haired, bearded men are classic wizard example (Tolkein stole it from Merlin, for example). Two male friends are a classic example of bonding (though you rarely hear of female bonding...). Comic relief could come from anywhere. Womrtongue is a name, Wormtail is a former rat who has been caged up and put through numerous tribulations by the Weasley twins. Voldemort is a classic example of a villian (Sauron was too, but he was less arrogant IMO). Dobby isn't schizophrenic. Forbidden forests are common, as well as 'dark, evil creatures in them'. Legendary swords are in English folklore (Excalibur). Orphans are common to introduce tragedy.
I give you that the Dementors and Nazgul are just too similar (though black robes are commonly seen on Death). Invisibility cloaks are similar (though they also appear in other stories).
That leaves you with one parallel: Aragog and Shelob.
Also, the dementors and the nazgul have completely different aspects. Black robed figures have certain connotations in fantasy, I use them myself and they're not uncommon at all. J.R.R. Tolkein doesn't have the monopoly on all things fantasy, and most come from ancient folklore.
As far as their appearance in the movie, if they were made to look like the Nazgul that is more than likely the fault of the directors of the movie, not of Rowlings.
The deaths of Harry Potter's parents have significance to the plot. The deaths of Frodo's, while they do have some peripheral impact, are nowhere near as important.
Also, the concept of an orphan hero is used in many, many mediums. It's hardly a new concept.
With the case of Aragog, I would like to point out that Aragog is not evil, unlike Shelob. Also, giant creatures such as spiders, snakes (such as, for example, the Basilisk, where I've yet to see a parallel drawn), etc.. are staple to fantasy.
Dumbledore is way more Merlin than he is Gandalf.
I, too, could go on.
You really have no support for your argument. You're picking out minor details and making a big deal out of them, but really it is not a relation beyond both are fantasy and use standard fantasy conventions that have been around in the mythology of several cultures for quite some time.
Just look at the plots. They're nothing alike.
Really, the major basis of Harry Potter, aside from the traditional fantasy aspects, is the old British boarding school stories, from which Hogwarts was very much inspired.
Speaking of which, where is Hogwarts in your "Harry Potter copied Lord of the Rings" list? It's fairly integral to the plot, I would think.
Eh. While I disagree with Ultimate99997's obvious contempt for Rowling, I do agree with him that there are parallels between LotR and Harry Potter (whether it was intentional or not). And to claim that there are "absolutely no parallels" seems rather dismissive.
I'm not saying that Rowling copied off of LotR or that the books are even very similar. But there are some parallels and I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't understand why people are so vehemently against any sort of connection between the two books.
<!--My GOD, do you get depressing about EVERYTHING?!
The film was amazing - well shot and a great storyline, which is inexclusively aimed a children, all of whom will not be omgz oh so clevar as yourself, and wouldn't have as easily predicted of the things that happened.
If you had read the book, which a great percentage of the audience would have, then you would already have know what was going to happen anyway. As I did. But the loss of the element of surprise did nothing to the films brilliance.
Stop whinging, whinge-face.-->
We don't address other members like that. Keep it up and you will not remain on this site for very long.
~Void
.:@~Kaz~@:.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
