Welcome to Harry Potter Forum! Below you will find many interesting threads and discussions. Enjoy.
The Thread with Random Comments
Since there are no new discussions of my original post, I thought I'd change the title to somethimg more fitting. 
Click Here.
I LOL'd several times in this article. Still, it's nice to see some support!
"So the trailer for the upcoming Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 emerged yesterday, attracting the usual criticism that - as with its prequels - its aimed at children, a load of insubstantial rubbish lacking the depth and darkness of those other film franchises that rank alongside it in terms of box office success.
Anyway, its not true: the biggest and best blockbusters always appeal to people of every age, and a look at the audience for any of the Harry Potter movies will yield a rich and varied mix of both the young and the old. Unlike the Twilight series, Harry Potter hasnt limited itself to hordes of excitable teenage girls (and those others able to places themselves in the cinema at the same time without feeling a huge loss of dignity).
Harry Potter: magic compared to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings...
Indeed, Harry Potters audience is also more evenly split between the sexes thanStar Wars and Lord of the Rings, both of which appeal far more to emotionally stunted fanboys who cant seem to survive without some complex actions sequences and contrived back history to slaver over. For this reason alone you could probably rightly argue that Harry Potter is the best blockbuster film franchise of all time, easily outdoing its more puerile peers. If the two-part Deathly Hallows movies are in any way as accomplished as the trailers suggest, then its pretty much game over. But why?
Well, first off theres far greater emotional depth. The course of the eight Harry Potters movies have allowed us the chance to literally grow up with Harry, Hermoine and Ron. (Thats even if you didnt start off at the same age as they were, in which case your identification with them could take on a whole new level while coping with the rigours of adolescence.)
Meanwhile, in the original Star Wars trilogy, Luke Skywalker started off being a mope, and ended up a slightly more steely-eyed mope. Princess Leia: well, she also ended up slightly more steely eyed. Han Solo was still the same badass, albeit slightly tenderised and with a slightly more steely-eyed Chewbacca by his side. In the new trilogy, where character development really took a back seat, Anakin Skywalker started off as a mope, and ended up as a far angrier, limbless mope. (While the other characters were so boring that its hard to recall what even happened to them, or whether they were just some cardboard cut-out computer constructs all along, à la Total Recall.)
With Lord of the Rings you had some ridiculous cheery hobbits who ended up markedly less cheery, something which could have been far more easily achieved by administering some sharp slaps to their furry little chops. (It would have saved quite a few hours viewing time too.) The elves were still pretty much as emotionless as ever, and Aragorn transformed from being a misery guts to being King Elessar, or King Misery Guts as all his subjects probably called him behind his back.
Click Here.
I LOL'd several times in this article. Still, it's nice to see some support!
"So the trailer for the upcoming Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 emerged yesterday, attracting the usual criticism that - as with its prequels - its aimed at children, a load of insubstantial rubbish lacking the depth and darkness of those other film franchises that rank alongside it in terms of box office success.
Anyway, its not true: the biggest and best blockbusters always appeal to people of every age, and a look at the audience for any of the Harry Potter movies will yield a rich and varied mix of both the young and the old. Unlike the Twilight series, Harry Potter hasnt limited itself to hordes of excitable teenage girls (and those others able to places themselves in the cinema at the same time without feeling a huge loss of dignity).
Harry Potter: magic compared to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings...
Indeed, Harry Potters audience is also more evenly split between the sexes thanStar Wars and Lord of the Rings, both of which appeal far more to emotionally stunted fanboys who cant seem to survive without some complex actions sequences and contrived back history to slaver over. For this reason alone you could probably rightly argue that Harry Potter is the best blockbuster film franchise of all time, easily outdoing its more puerile peers. If the two-part Deathly Hallows movies are in any way as accomplished as the trailers suggest, then its pretty much game over. But why?
Well, first off theres far greater emotional depth. The course of the eight Harry Potters movies have allowed us the chance to literally grow up with Harry, Hermoine and Ron. (Thats even if you didnt start off at the same age as they were, in which case your identification with them could take on a whole new level while coping with the rigours of adolescence.)
Meanwhile, in the original Star Wars trilogy, Luke Skywalker started off being a mope, and ended up a slightly more steely-eyed mope. Princess Leia: well, she also ended up slightly more steely eyed. Han Solo was still the same badass, albeit slightly tenderised and with a slightly more steely-eyed Chewbacca by his side. In the new trilogy, where character development really took a back seat, Anakin Skywalker started off as a mope, and ended up as a far angrier, limbless mope. (While the other characters were so boring that its hard to recall what even happened to them, or whether they were just some cardboard cut-out computer constructs all along, à la Total Recall.)
With Lord of the Rings you had some ridiculous cheery hobbits who ended up markedly less cheery, something which could have been far more easily achieved by administering some sharp slaps to their furry little chops. (It would have saved quite a few hours viewing time too.) The elves were still pretty much as emotionless as ever, and Aragorn transformed from being a misery guts to being King Elessar, or King Misery Guts as all his subjects probably called him behind his back.
Comments
It was an even bolder move when you consider that the mighty George Lucas decided not to kill off Han Solo, apparently because he didnt want to affect toy sales. What a guy! Lord of the Rings did bump off its elderly wizard Gandalf the Grey, but chickened out by then having him return as Gandalf the White. (Apparently in Tolkiens universe death means that you can come back dazzling thanks to the use of some Daz soap.)
Then theres the gradual introduction of Lord Voldemort, now fiendishly inhabited by Ralph Fiennes, the path between him and the series protagonist leading to what one can only assume is a blinking heck of a huge battle in the last movie Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. By comparison, the other two franchises got a bit confused by not having a main villain to rail again during the entirety of their narratives. (Well, LOTR had Sauron, but he was hard to have much fear of when he was a big eye most of the time, just appearing like the Big Brother logo gone loco. Star Warss Emperor suffered simply by looking nowhere as cool as fearsome as Darth Vader was, back before he went all paternal and namby pamby.)
It also helped having a calibre the likes of Fiennes in the role of Potters nemesis, illustrating another strength that puts Harry Potter on top: having such an astounding supporting cast (of mainly Brits) bringing real depth to even the more minor characters. Ralph Fiennes, Gary Oldman, Michael Gambon, John Hurt, Alan Rickman, Ian Hurt, Brendan Gleeson, Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson, David Tennant, Kenneth Branagh... the list goes on and on. Star Wars and LOTR both have some heavyweight talent, but nothing that comes close in comparison.
And talking about heavyweight talent, how about the humour? Or what I think of as Hagrid vs Gimli vs... Well, Chewbacca may have provided some comic foil, but Star Wars is already sunk here thanks to the sizzling anti-humour of Jar Jar Binks and the Ewoks. Anyway, out of the other two loveable hairy beast Hagrid easily comes out on top, thanks to a loveable portrayal by Robbie Coltrane, while hateful LOTR dwarf Gimli is little more than a pumped up poster boy for small man syndrome. Oh, plus hes also the sort of annoying sod that you hoped in final film Return of the King would have been shoved into a barrel, then rolled off into the volcanic fires of Mount Doom along with the one ring.
Perhaps it helped that Harry Potter has an array of directorial talent to keep things fresh, with David Yates on hand to smoothly navigate the last few chapters. It's hard to believe Peter Jackson can keep things fresh for The Hobbit, and as for George Lucas and the last Star Wars trilogy, the less said the better... Anyway, so there you have it. In summation, Harry Potter triumphs over Star Wars and LOTR - despite supposedly being more for children - and does so with such ease that it's a kind of magic. If you cant accept that, then youre the one who has to grow up."
Now granted, Star Wars is a lot older. Still, will Harry Potter have this same effect in 30 years? I doubt it. Not saying it will be forgotten but the original Star Wars movie in 1977 was a film industry revolution in special effects and it practically created the fantasy genre (yes I said fantasy. SW may be set in space but it's much more fantasy than sci-fi). Very few films have had an impact on the industry like Star Wars has . . . actually, I'd be bold enough to say that NO film has ever had as huge of a lasting impact as Star Wars.
Not saying you have to like Star Wars at all . . . but you have to have mad respect for it and it's commercial (movies, TV, games and toys) and pop cultural success.
Yes i remember and then i pleaded for his return i mad like 3 threads asking for him to come back lol
Oh I'm not saying that NOTHING could ever beat Star Wars (that would be stupid to say nothing) . . . I just don't think we've seen anything YET that can beat its over all popularity and impact.
Potter has a TON going for it and as a franchise it has made more money (in the Box Office) than Star Wars but the Galaxy far, far away is a money making machine with most of it's profit coming from Toys. Overall, as a brand, Star Wars is by far the most successful movie franchise to date (that's speaking in a general sense).
But then i think nothing will beat star wars. I mean,like i said hp is a close second,if that cant then i dont see another franchise doing what it did.
Yeah, Lucas (hate him or love him) is a marketing genius. Who else could get their fans to buy the same movies over and over (at least 5 different times now not including the blu-ray releases that are coming out next year)
However, just because I really like Potter doesn't mean that I won't accept facts. I might not like the fact that another movie series is overall more successful (like Star Wars) but truth is truth whether I like the truth or not. It doesn't matter how badly I like a movie and how much I want it to be the most successful . . . in the end, if it's not then it's not.
Just saying.
Yes 100% true nick thank u very much.
Now granted, Star Wars is a lot older. Still, will Harry Potter have this same effect in 30 years? I doubt it. Not saying it will be forgotten but the original Star Wars movie in 1977 was a film industry revolution in special effects and it practically created the fantasy genre (yes I said fantasy. SW may be set in space but it's much more fantasy than sci-fi). Very few films have had an impact on the industry like Star Wars has . . . actually, I'd be bold enough to say that NO film has ever had as huge of a lasting impact as Star Wars.
Not saying you have to like Star Wars at all . . . but you have to have mad respect for it and it's commercial (movies, TV, games and toys) and pop cultural success. [/quote]
Agreed.
Not to say I don't think that HP could do the same thing, I think it has a good chance. I mean with Star Wars, in my family, we're on the third generation of Star Wars fans. It's something I've introduced my kids to, and I hope they introduce it to their children when that time comes. And I'm trying to do the same thing with Harry Potter
That's probably more of a matter of opinion.
Also i didn't quit coming to this forum because you guys said something about Star Wars, but because there is general bit of nonsensical behavior here that is really annoying. I hate reading through your guys chat trying to read about HP. I also unplugged by going out of town for a week and a half and just didn't come back after that.
I never even saw any threads asking me to come back because i quit reading the forum. The problem is that it is a minority of people that act badly on this forum.
Also quit calling me him. Now it is just getting annoying.
I think it's comments like this that decarus was referring to.
I actually am fine with the argument in favor of HP as the greatest series of all time. It is a valid argument. I wish we could just argue without it deteriorating to the i wish you would just leave, you're a troll, you're not a real HP fan. I mean why do we have to go there. I don't get it.