| W E L C O M E G U E S T S Welcome to 6 Star Wrestling. We are a small community of dedicated wrestling fans. Our forum members range from new to the product to 20+ years of viewer knowledge of the product. We discuss WWE, TNA, ROH, WCW, and various other wrestling companies. Regardless if you have just watched your first wrestling show or if you have been following wrestling your entire life, I guarantee that you'll find someone to have an in-depth and enjoyable conversation with. We also have discussions that are not related to wrestling. We discuss movies, music, news, play games, and do all sorts of fun and interesting things. So even if you are not a wrestling fan, we can guarantee you'll find something to keep your interest while you are here. Feel free to follow us on Twitter and Like us on Facebook with the links below! Please enjoy, The 6 Star Community Register your free account today! http://6starwrestling.net http://twitter.com/6StarWrestling http://facebook.com/6StarWrestling |
| Harry Potter Marathon | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 17 2012, 11:22 AM (3,670 Views) | |
| Cybrus | Mar 31 2013, 04:52 AM Post #151 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
Who are "they? I'm guessing you mean the movie industry. Harry Potter is a multi-billion dollar franchise. I could see them wanting to see that kind of money again. But, honestly, I couldn't see anyone else playing Harry, Hermione, or Ron. Even Voldemort is pretty much set in my mind now. Although, I do think it would be kind of cool to see a darker version of the movies. Not completely dark for dark sake, nothing drastic. Just telling the stories with a slightly more mature tone throughout. But I am guessing 20 years or so if they do remake the series. It'll be long after the main three have aged to the point no one would recognize them as the main three. you know? |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Mar 31 2013, 04:57 AM Post #152 |
|
Yes, the movie industry. Also, The Lord of the Rings is also a multi-billion dollar franchise, but with both they risk some huge backlash if they remake either too early - or possibly ever in the lifetimes of those who were around when it was released initially. It would be like someone coming along to remake the original Star Wars trilogy. It's a very classic series that is far too dear and near to people's hearts to risk remaking, even if the profits would be glorious for the studios. |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Mar 31 2013, 05:08 AM Post #153 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
Yes, Lord of the Rings is a multi billion dollar franchise and is equally highly regarded. There is a small difference between LOTR and Harry Potter, though. They are still making Hobbit movies with 2 more movies scheduled to release over the next 2 years. Similar with the Star Wars (another multi billion dollar) franchise. The original three were "remastered" and all, but they are still capable of making new entries into the series and even spin offs (clone wars was a spin off, right? I honestly don't know). Disney is working on another Star Wars movie right now. But Harry Potter? That franchise is completed. Rowlings is not going to write anything else Harry Potter related, so there is no material to base anything else off. I'm sure they'll continue to make millions on DVD releases and selling the rights to show the movies on TV, but that'll run dry much quicker than Star Wars or LOTR. So I think if any of these get a remake/reboot that Harry Potter would be the first to do it. |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Mar 31 2013, 05:38 AM Post #154 |
|
The Hobbit is more or less part of the same series, though. It features many of the same characters and is pretty much just a prequel and set-up for the three LotR movies. After the movies based on that book are finished, I'm pretty sure that the LotR franchise will be done just as Harry Potter is. It's not like J.R.R. Tolkien is going to rise from the grave and pen a new chapter to the series. The series will be done with The Hobbit. Well... unless they decide to turn The Silmarillion into a movie series, which would be a clusterfuck by the sound of it (imagine turning your entire history book from High School into a movie series) and not an option until 2043 when the copyright runs out since Christopher Tolkien seems to be very much against it being made since he and apparently the Tolkien family in general are not fans of the movies. It's kind of funny how similar they are in some respects. Not only are they both classic book series with a built-in limited run (as in they can't just keep making movies based off of them without making new books that aren't part of the author's original vision), but they both kind of tested the waters for the other to release their films. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was pretty much the first major movie series to be filmed grouped tightly together based off of one series of books and then released over a period of time to maximize their profit. They tested the waters for what would end up being the secret to keeping both Harry Potter (and Twilight) steadily in the mainstream's mind for more than a year or two. Meanwhile, Harry Potter took one book and stretched it into multiple parts to maximize the profit they could get out of one last chapter in the series. The same technique is being used by the people behind The Hobbit to maximize their profit out of the last book they can make a movie out of in the same series (as did Twilight). They both, more or less, set the new standard for the way Hollywood produces movies based off of book series. |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Mar 31 2013, 05:59 AM Post #155 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
Similar, yet still quite different: All three Lord of the Rings movies were filmed at the same time. This ensured that all the actors would be the same, that everyone would look the same age in the movies, and that literally every single detail would match between the three movies. That leaves a series that feels like one giant movie. Which is good. It's how it should be told. Harry Potter, however, is literally about a boy growing up facing tragedy and adversity and learning what true friendship is about. So the fact that they started with an 11 year old boy and we literally saw him grow up in each movie is fitting and the exact right way to tell the story. It is a bit of a gamble, though, since any of the actors could have left the series which could have been disastrous. They did replace Dumbledore (to mixed reactions) but the over all cast mostly stayed the same. The Hobbit...I own the book. I've read the book. I like the book a great deal. It's a really fun book and tells a really fun story. But I think they are really stretching the material thin to make 3 movies from it. The Harry Potter books were all very thick books with loads of information in them. The first 3 movies were all fine, but Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince, and Deathly Hallows were all rich enough books to be turned into 2 movies each. The director even mentioned wanting to do that. I think that would have been stretching the series past it's limit, but at least it had the material to do that. |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Mar 31 2013, 06:08 AM Post #156 |
|
And judging by many people's reaction to how much they cut out of the stories, they easily could have stretched out The Lord of the Rings trilogy into two or three more movies if they had wanted to. Which if they had waited ten years and did it now, they probably would have. Then again, nobody had set that "release the series in quick secession" thing like the LotR movies did before they did it*, so who knows how that would have affected the Harry Potter film series. They might have waited longer to tackle it since LotR kind of proved that you could turn a deep multi-part series into a series of successful films. Not counting the rare back-to-back two parters like Back To The Future Part II and Part III. |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Mar 31 2013, 06:15 AM Post #157 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
I just checked on BoxOfficeMojo and the first Hobbit movie made a worldwide title of $1.01 billion. So guess there was no harm in stretching the material very thin after all. I haven't seen the movie. I'll get it on Netflix next month. But with DVD sales and rentals, this first movie has already proven itself to be a multi-billion dollar franchise...which only continues the LOTR strength (since The Hobbit is a part of the LOTR, really). |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Mar 31 2013, 06:23 AM Post #158 |
|
It's good. Not "great", but pretty good. I downloaded it before the DVD came out and watched it, then it was playing in the break room at work for a good week or so, so I saw it several times then, too. It doesn't have the same feeling of setting up something really epic like Fellowship of the Ring had, but it's also much more action oriented and exciting than Fellowship was - if a little bare underneath the action. The lead who plays Bilbo does a phenomenal job at playing a younger version of the old Bilbo we're familiar with from the LotR trilogy. I never once think to myself that he isn't Bilbo. Not to mention once it's complete it's going to add so much to the LotR trilogy. It'll make those films feel even more epic and complete. The Hobbit feels like it's doing right what the prequel trilogy in Star Wars struggled to do. Edited by Kraul, Mar 31 2013, 06:23 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Mar 31 2013, 06:29 AM Post #159 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
I still haven't gotten back into the Lord of the Rings books. I'm not sure why my interest dropped, but it did. I'm sure I'll be interested in the books again sometime, just not right now. I've noticed that a lot of the book that I have read so far did not make it into the movie. It was brushed over quickly or just left out completely. I've read that The Hobbit is the exact opposite and that almost every single page of the book makes it into the movie. I'll know in about a month, I suppose. That's my only (minor) complaint against Netflix. The Hobbit came out on DVD in March. It won't even be available on Netflix until Apirl 16...a full month after the DVD release. And then I'll probably still have to wait since I'm sure it'll be in high demand.
|
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Mar 31 2013, 07:08 AM Post #160 |
|
Or you could look up 1Channel. ![]() As for the books, according to a guy I work with, they've actually added a bunch of stuff to the movies to fill them out and add in more details because the book is both so short and because they're making three movies off of one book. I wouldn't know though because I've never read any of the books related to LotR (or Harry Potter), and I most likely never will. |
![]() |
|
| MY85 | Apr 1 2013, 01:26 AM Post #161 |
|
It's a fabulous new day, yes it is!
|
I dunno if I can take GOF and HBP in two films, but I agree with OOTP. That was a fantastic book, but the movie adapatation wasn't that good to me. |
![]() |
|
| SpaceOdyssey | Apr 1 2013, 11:17 AM Post #162 |
|
Order of the Phoenix was the worst film in my opinion, I also only got half way through the book before shelving it! I haven't read any Harry Potter since
|
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Apr 1 2013, 12:27 PM Post #163 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
You are really robbing yourself of a truly memorable experience then.
|
![]() |
|
| SpaceOdyssey | Apr 1 2013, 01:01 PM Post #164 |
|
I have been thinking of going back and continuing from The Half Blood Prince, I really enjoyed the films but something about Order Of The Phoenix just put me off reading any more. Sort of hard to place why though, it was years ago since I had begun reading it so I may enjoy it more now! |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Apr 1 2013, 01:26 PM Post #165 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
What part of the book did you leave off? When did you stop reading? Order of the Phoenix is a depressing story that leads to a huge climax. It's easy to dislike the book when everything in Harry's world is all bad for so long. But it's through those struggles that makes the climax of the story that much more exciting. |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Apr 1 2013, 05:50 PM Post #166 |
|
I don't know anything about the book, but the film version of Order of the Phoenix was by far my least favorite. Well, that and Prisoner of Azkaban. So much so that if I ever watch the Harry Potter movies again, I'll probably skip over those two. |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Apr 1 2013, 11:43 PM Post #167 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
I wouldn't personally skip the movies just because they were not well liked from the first viewing. The first time I watched (and read) Half-Blood Prince I really didn't like it at all. But after a few viewing, I've started to appreciate the movie. When you watch something the first time and realize you don't like it, you start to zone out and miss out on a little things. If you watch it again, you pick up on things you may have missed the first time. Of course, I say this as a fan of the series so obviously I'd watch the movies repeatedly even if one of the movies may irk me a little. But I wouldn't sit down and watch another movie that I didn't like just to see if I liked it again. So maybe my advice is rather pointless.
|
![]() |
|
| SpaceOdyssey | Apr 2 2013, 11:21 AM Post #168 |
|
I stopped reading around the point that the teacher was forcing Harry to write something into his arm! I think that's why I probably stopped reading at the time, I must have been what 12 or 13 when I read this one so probably just got depressed by what was happening and couldn't read on!
Prisoner of Azkaban is definitely my favourite film and favourite book (of the ones I've read anyway!) I loved how dark it was and Serius Black was always one of the most interesting characters for me! |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Apr 2 2013, 11:35 AM Post #169 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
If it's been a few years since you've read it, then maybe you should try again? Your opinion of things change as you grow, just as your taste in food changes as you grow. |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Apr 2 2013, 07:39 PM Post #170 |
|
I was not a fan of Sirius Black at all. In the movies, the audience is given very little reason to care about the guy. He's made to sound like this big deal but every time he shows up he's just some dude that looks mellow with Harry. And seeing that entire movie is basically dedicated to his hype while simultaneously failing to deliver, Azkaban suffers greatly for it, imo. I know it's apparently different in the books, but that does nothing for me since I've only watched the movies. It's kind of like people going on about how much of a bad-ass Boba Fett is because of all the books and games he's been in where he's portrayed as one, yet his appearances in the movies just portray him to be rather average and forgettable. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Arts & Entertainment · Next Topic » |






8:07 AM Jul 11