quote:
Supposedly posted by Chewy Walrus:
quote:
Originally posted by TheTimeTrust:
In any case, the Lord of the Rings film was far superior to the Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone film, in my opinion.
Harry Potter joined the JLA in "Rock of Ages"?!

[AAAHHHH!!!] [AAAHHHH!!!] [AAAHHHH!!!] [AAAHHHH!!!] [AAAHHHH!!!]

[wink]

At any rate, I just saw Harry Potter last week (and saw Fellowship twice in theaters) and must say that, as a film, Fellowship was much better. Of course, I haven't read either book, but, as I understand from my good friend at school, the LotR adaptation was almost perfect, save the exclusion of Tom Bombadill, giving Aragon a full sword (as opposed to the broken sword of Isolder), and the inclusion of Arwin for the sake of having a love interest.

Of course, I've not run into anyone who's read Harry Potter and the SORCEROR'S Stone, but if I do, I'll be sure to ask them about the print-to-screen adaptation...
Uhh... heh... sorry to pull the rug out from you while you're in mockery-mode, Chewy, but the title of the novel and the film adaptation is indeed "Harry Potter and the PHILOSOPHER'S Stone."

Only in America did they feel they had to "dum it down" a bit for those who had never heard of the Philosopher's Stone (for that is what is was) by calling it the "Sorceror's Stone"...

[yuh huh] [yuh huh]

[ 08-02-2002, 02:34 AM: Message edited by: TheTimeTrust ]