Lord of rings had three of them whereas Harry Potter had four movies in its quartet.
Which of the two do you think represents superior cinema?
2006-09-19 08:08:29 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
No contest. Lord of the Rings represents far more imaginative and creative movie-making. Also visually much more compelling. And better acting. And better scripts. The Harry Potter movies are much too cautiously tied to the books. This is especially true of the first two Harry Potter movies. Peter Jackson simply understands cinema in a way that Chris Columbus never will. Chris Columbus is just a pedestrian, by the book, paint by numbers director. Peter Jackson is an artist.
2006-09-19 08:11:30 · answer #1 · answered by rollo_tomassi423 6 · 12⤊ 1⤋
Lord of the Rings
2006-09-19 08:14:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Lord of the Rings
2006-09-19 08:11:12 · answer #3 · answered by digitaloddity72 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Lord of the Rings hands down the winner!!!Harry potter is a kids movie,which i can not bear myself to watch.
2006-09-19 08:34:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
I think The Lord of the Rings was an excellent film. Two and Three weren't as good, but were fun to watch. Whereas out of the 4 Potter movies I deeply enjoyed 3 of the 4. So I'm going to go with Harry.
2006-09-19 08:19:26 · answer #5 · answered by khaoss15 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Lord of the Rings =)
2006-09-19 08:31:24 · answer #6 · answered by ♥ mars♥ 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Lord of the Rings. It is a far better set of movies with virtuous meaning and is written by a great author.
2006-09-19 08:10:55 · answer #7 · answered by rltouhe 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
both- i can't decide ilke them both!!
when i saw the harry potter movies i became opsest and finished all the 4 pc games in a week!When i saw lord of the rings... wel i couldn't find only a strategy game and...(i don't like strategy!)
2006-09-19 10:09:40 · answer #8 · answered by thetigerdan 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They are both and full of entertainment. I've never read the potter books so I cannot speak but the lord was a great adaptation of the books even though a lot, such as tom bombadil, was left out. Frodo was still as much of a wuss as always and samwise was the man.
2006-09-19 08:18:48 · answer #9 · answered by TheDude 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Lord of the Rings! Dont look at how many they made, look at the awards!
2006-09-19 08:21:15 · answer #10 · answered by TroubleRose 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋