> Why on earth are these two movies even being compared as much as they are? I loved "Harry Potter" and I'm sure I'll love "Lord of the Rings", but these are two totally different styles of movie aimed at different audiences and TOTALLY different age groups.
>
> Brunnen-"oh, right, but they're both based on books which have magic and stuff in them. Gah"G

Well, there is some basis for comparison; in my opinion Rowlings is the best fantasy writer whose work is accessable to young readers since Tolkien. Both movies were ambitious adaptations of popular books. Both movies required a delicate balance between breadth and depth if they were to be kept at watchable lengths.

I had high standards that I did not expect to be met for both films. I was definitely disapointed by "Harry Potter." It seemed to me that the film had breadth, but no depth, covering too many minor events at the expense of not giving major ones the time they deserved. The movie, to me, also seemed to be aimed at a much narrower audience than the books; the dialouge was, in my opinion "dumbed down." I was told later by a friend of mine who enjoyed the movie that I simply had unattainable expectations, and until I saw LOTR I would have probably agreed.

Wow. Was that three hours that just went by? I kept expecting for the directors to run out of time and just rush through the end of the book, but it never happened. Every event that was included was well covered. I was especially glad that the movie didn't skimp on the exposition like I expected it to.

Anyway, in a book entitled "How to Make and How *not* to Adapt an Epic Fantasy Novel" I'd use LOTR and 'Potter' as the examples, respectively.

Bal"sorry if I'm making duplicate points, I'm not caught up on all the posts yet"anthalus