I think you are being a little harsh on Harry Potter, mostly because I dont think that the comparison is a very valid one. Harry Potter is a CHILDRENS SERIES. I would call its target age 10-14. I would not expect to see the level of epic struggle in LOTR in any children's book. It's like saying that Risk sucks because MEPBM is better. There are a lot of people who do fine at Risk who would be totally lost if you handed them a turnsheet and asked them to finish your orders. LOTR is clearly written for a more sophisticated audience than is Potter, and I think both do a good job of reaching their target. Because HP is GOOD childrens literature, many adults (myself included)also enjoyed it, but I would not expect the average 10 year old to really appreciate The 2 Towers. Potter is better compared with something like the Chronicles of Narnia, intended to appeal to a similar age group. Again, C.S. Lewis comes out better, largely by virtue of the level of larger themes he is able to tie into his stories, but there you have the difference between a good writer and a great one.
In terms of the box office, I think HP will probably do much better than LOTR. If properly done (i.e. no Jar-Jar Binks-like comic relief mass appeal to 8 year old characters) LOTR will draw mostly Sci-Fi/Action fans. Similar audience to Highlander, I would guess mostly Males 15-30. It will be competing against other big-budget action type movies. Every mom with a family of young kids will see HP, maybe more than once, and there usually arent too many high visibility childrens moves out at any one time. If it isn't marketed too heavily towards little kids, it might even be an acceptable compromise for dates. It will probably do better in marketing as well, since I would guess few of us collect many action figures any more.
Winn
Harry Potter has no
···
chance against LOTR! LOTR will turn Harry Potter into "HP" sauce!
Harry Potter, to me, has nothing in common to LOTR:
LOTR is an epic tale of good vs. evil (Darth Vader vs Luke Skywalker) and
Harry Potter is a load of ****!!!!!!
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
I agree on the targeted audiences of both films, i must admit. But Harry
Potter is hardly fantasy, so i don't see how there can be a big competition?
a)LOTR will be a blockbuster fantasy epic that will make (me personally) wet
my pants.
b)Harry Potter would be cool, but not the sort of film that i would want to
watch again. A bit like most other children's films.
Bakshi's LOTR was great! It was aimed at children, yet it had the great
adventurous quility about it that made me watch again and again. And i'm not
bias!
I'll go and see HP, and it's being filmed at Alnwick Castle, which is 5
miles away from where i live!
I have been rather harsh on HP...and i haven't the right to judge it as i
haven't read it... I'm going on the reviews of others i know. I'll pinch my
sister's copy now....and have a read!
···
----- Original Message -----
From: Winn Keathley <Gnaeus@hotmail.com>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 6:51 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Harry Potter
I think you are being a little harsh on Harry Potter, mostly because I
dont
think that the comparison is a very valid one. Harry Potter is a CHILDRENS
SERIES. I would call its target age 10-14. I would not expect to see the
level of epic struggle in LOTR in any children's book. It's like saying
that
Risk sucks because MEPBM is better. There are a lot of people who do fine
at
Risk who would be totally lost if you handed them a turnsheet and asked
them
to finish your orders. LOTR is clearly written for a more sophisticated
audience than is Potter, and I think both do a good job of reaching their
target. Because HP is GOOD childrens literature, many adults (myself
included)also enjoyed it, but I would not expect the average 10 year old
to
really appreciate The 2 Towers. Potter is better compared with something
like the Chronicles of Narnia, intended to appeal to a similar age group.
Again, C.S. Lewis comes out better, largely by virtue of the level of
larger
themes he is able to tie into his stories, but there you have the
difference
between a good writer and a great one.
In terms of the box office, I think HP will probably do much better than
LOTR. If properly done (i.e. no Jar-Jar Binks-like comic relief mass
appeal
to 8 year old characters) LOTR will draw mostly Sci-Fi/Action fans.
Similar
audience to Highlander, I would guess mostly Males 15-30. It will be
competing against other big-budget action type movies. Every mom with a
family of young kids will see HP, maybe more than once, and there usually
arent too many high visibility childrens moves out at any one time. If it
isn't marketed too heavily towards little kids, it might even be an
acceptable compromise for dates. It will probably do better in marketing
as
well, since I would guess few of us collect many action figures any more.
Winn
Harry Potter has no
>chance against LOTR! LOTR will turn Harry Potter into "HP" sauce!
>Harry Potter, to me, has nothing in common to LOTR:
>LOTR is an epic tale of good vs. evil (Darth Vader vs Luke Skywalker) and
>Harry Potter is a load of ****!!!!!!
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
I reckon you will find you have been harsh on Harry - I resisted for ages,
but when a third friend of mine (hardened LOTR fanatic) told me that he
would defy anyone not to enjoy it, I gave in. He was right - the books are
very easy reading, but also very enjoyable.
Also you will find that Harry Potter is certainly fantasy - ghosts, magic,
dragons, duels between mages, good vs. Evil, etc. And with deaths, too -
not your average children's book.
Tony Ackroyd (aged 31 and a quarter)
···
----- Original Message -----
From: nplindsell <nplindsell@classicfm.net>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: 20 October 2000 20:39
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Harry Potter
I agree on the targeted audiences of both films, i must admit. But Harry
Potter is hardly fantasy, so i don't see how there can be a big
competition?
a)LOTR will be a blockbuster fantasy epic that will make (me personally)
wet
my pants.
b)Harry Potter would be cool, but not the sort of film that i would want
to
watch again. A bit like most other children's films.
Bakshi's LOTR was great! It was aimed at children, yet it had the great
adventurous quility about it that made me watch again and again. And i'm
not
bias!
I'll go and see HP, and it's being filmed at Alnwick Castle, which is 5
miles away from where i live!
I have been rather harsh on HP...and i haven't the right to judge it as i
haven't read it... I'm going on the reviews of others i know. I'll pinch
my
sister's copy now....and have a read!
----- Original Message -----
From: Winn Keathley <Gnaeus@hotmail.com>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 6:51 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Harry Potter
>
> I think you are being a little harsh on Harry Potter, mostly because I
dont
> think that the comparison is a very valid one. Harry Potter is a
CHILDRENS
> SERIES. I would call its target age 10-14. I would not expect to see the
> level of epic struggle in LOTR in any children's book. It's like saying
that
> Risk sucks because MEPBM is better. There are a lot of people who do
fine
at
> Risk who would be totally lost if you handed them a turnsheet and asked
them
> to finish your orders. LOTR is clearly written for a more sophisticated
> audience than is Potter, and I think both do a good job of reaching
their
> target. Because HP is GOOD childrens literature, many adults (myself
> included)also enjoyed it, but I would not expect the average 10 year old
to
> really appreciate The 2 Towers. Potter is better compared with something
> like the Chronicles of Narnia, intended to appeal to a similar age
group.
> Again, C.S. Lewis comes out better, largely by virtue of the level of
larger
> themes he is able to tie into his stories, but there you have the
difference
> between a good writer and a great one.
>
> In terms of the box office, I think HP will probably do much better than
> LOTR. If properly done (i.e. no Jar-Jar Binks-like comic relief mass
appeal
> to 8 year old characters) LOTR will draw mostly Sci-Fi/Action fans.
Similar
> audience to Highlander, I would guess mostly Males 15-30. It will be
> competing against other big-budget action type movies. Every mom with a
> family of young kids will see HP, maybe more than once, and there
usually
> arent too many high visibility childrens moves out at any one time. If
it
> isn't marketed too heavily towards little kids, it might even be an
> acceptable compromise for dates. It will probably do better in marketing
as
> well, since I would guess few of us collect many action figures any
more.
>
> Winn
>
> Harry Potter has no
> >chance against LOTR! LOTR will turn Harry Potter into "HP" sauce!
> >Harry Potter, to me, has nothing in common to LOTR:
> >LOTR is an epic tale of good vs. evil (Darth Vader vs Luke Skywalker)
and
> >Harry Potter is a load of ****!!!!!!
>
_________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>
>
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
