|
lord of th rings,i suppose
|
|
|
duh :)) lord of the rings by a mile...
|
|
|
This kind of question can only be designated in answer by a persons likes and dislikes. ALot of people dont like star wars, or couldnt stay involved in the story of lord of the rings for long enough to watch it all. Each has a remarkable stability in the history of movies becuase of certain themes or reactions to them. The lord of the rings was read by many first and then watched- with others watching for the folklore of it. Star wars was a futuristic creation of a developing industry- movies- but after the first few, when they started bringing in the 'beginning' and gap fills, it became quite overrated to some. Bourne alot of people liked, harry potter it depended on if they read the books first, and the contreversy that sorrounded the books being a story basing itself in dark arts that schools banned. All are contriversial in there own way- but all are apart of the history of books and movies.
|
|
|
No question about it: The Lord of the Rings. though they might have taken a few artistic liberties (more prominent women's roles!), the producers did the classic justice.
|
|
|
this post has been removed
|
|
|
well actually if you really want to know the answer.Harry potter is the best in the books, lord of the rings books are behind them by a mile. But in movies lord of the rings are better. So there cannot be a competition between them. Bourne and star wars are no match between them
|
|
|
To be honest .................none of the above. All great movies and they have made a fantasic amount of money. But I think I'd choose a classic series - like Indiana Jones or Back to the Future. They were the fore runners.
|
|
|
Excellent point, Toni. The original Godfather was quite on par with the book. As to Prem's comments about LOTR being way behind Harry, well... I think LOTR was for a more mature audience while Harry can appeal to a younger crowd. Although I have some young ones, cousins and the like, that are avid readers (PTL) and are reading all sorts of stuff that is considered more "adult" in language. I have recently been infected with the Harry Potter virus. One of the things that aggravated me the most was the critics' complaint that the movies were too much like the books. Fortunately, given the younger audience of the books, this was a good thing. That's what children want: to see their books.
As for another book-to-movie review, I am also a classicist. To Kill a Mockingbird (favorite book of all time) and Gone with the Wind (in my top 10) were brilliantly transferred to the silver screen. While Patriot Games (another favorite) was raped and massacred by its Hollywood crew. I generally prefer to see the movie first as a movie cannot possibly ruin a good book. The opposite, however, is far from true. If you see a movie that is completely off what the book says, you know the book will be better regardless. That way, you get to enjoy both of them. lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
For me it is Lord of the Rings. I know they fudged alittle on the story, but what can you expect from Hollywood?
|
|
|
I was about to agree with Toni R wholeheartedly, but then I realized the Back to the Future Book is actually a book based on the an earlier version of the script. The movie(s) aren't based on a book. I haven't read the LotR series, but I have read the HP books and seen all the movies and aside from the first two, the rest of the movies have not lived up to the books.
|
|
|
Lord of the Rings. I don't expect that one to be unseated anytime soon. I am amazed at the number of non-gamer and non-fantasy folks that absolutely love this trilogy. More than anything, and beyond the concerns of the fanboi population, these films just did an astonishing job of translating and telling this epic story.
|
|
|
Have not seen the LOTR series but from d rest harry potter series no doubt...
|
|
|
well, It looks like none of you have seen Apu Series by GREAT Satyajeet Ray or Trois couleurs trio by Krzysztof Kieslowski. Both series are more realistic than the fantasies like LOTR or HP. But if I want entertainment then I'll pick up LOTR and Borne series.
|
|
|
could not have put that in a better way that if its not entertainment fanfare then its Apu series written by Bibhuti Bhushan Bandopadhyay and directed by Satyajit Ray
|
|
|
im no sure, i dont see a lot of movie series
|
|
|
I think Star Wars. I know a lot of people were disappointed with the acting in the prequels especially of Christianson as Annakin but for me the movies were more than just the actors. There is a huge team of artists and designers for the look of this make believe world that I love. I don't know of any other sereies that has taken so much care into the art, sets and style for a series of film. They are unique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if this counts, but I would say that the Chronicles of Narnia are pretty good. The first movie was average, but Prince Caspian is awesome.
|
|
|
I say Star Wars but Lord of the Rings was awesome so I don't know!
|
|
|
For me this is a total "no brainer": Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings completely caught Tolkien's story and most importantly kept the consistency of the story line. Can't wait for the Hobbit movies.
|
|
|
My vote for best movie series would be The Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson took good books and turned them into magical movies - every change he made to the plot I understood and couldn't fault him for, even applauded him for it. The makers of Harry Potter took magical books... and made movies lacking the magical wonder and fun that are so very charming in the books. I really like Star Wars, but for me they have been tainted by the prequels, and the changes made by George on the theater re-releases. Bourne is great fun... so they all make it on my list, but The Lord of the Rings is tops for me.
|