Star Wars vs Harry Potter

[bedub1]

[bigimg]http://i.imgur.com/CjUhC.jpg[/bigimg]

[shieldgenerator7]

Star Wars all the way!
Cool scifi tech mixed with fantasy VS. all fantasy with a few tricks. Star Wars wins.
(personally I'd say Star Trek wins but it's not part of the question here)

[PLAYER57832]

Harry Potter has the advantage of a lot of technology not available in the 70's. Also, part of the star wars deal was that it was a movie -- alone (though there are some Dean Foster books that gave some of the story earlier). At the time, it was well beyond anything ever shown in the movies. Harry Potter, by contrast had to compete with a book.


So.. both are great, but they really don't compare. Star Wars was a great 1970's move that helped shepard in a return to sci fi (along with a few others like ET). Harry Potter was a book that helped bring reading to a lot of kids, particularly middel school boys, who otherwise were not reading.

[Phatscotty]

Harry Twatter

[Haggis_McMutton]

This poll does not conform to the time honoured off-topics tradition of including a GFY/hecter/kittens/ponies/etc option, therefore I'm boycotting it.

Also, don't particularly like either of those.

[natty dread]

Harry Twatter

Seriously?

[bedub1]

This poll does not conform to the time honoured off-topics tradition of including a GFY/hecter/kittens/ponies/etc option, therefore I'm boycotting it.

Also, don't particularly like either of those.

So vote for the one that sucks more. Notice that the poll doesn't even really ask a question?

[Army of GOD]

Wow, JK Rowling is a plagiarizing bitch.

The original three Star Wars are lightyears ahead of Harry Cuntter and the latest three Star Wars are equal to Harry Dickker.

[Dukasaur]

Harry Potter is a lot of fun, but the Star Wars universe is more logically consistent, both externally and internally. Both take rather illogical leaps to establish a magic system, but at least Star Wars makes some attempt to ground its "Force" in reality and tie it together into a consistent system, whereas the spells in the Harry Potterverse are thrown together higgledy-piggledy without any kind of ground rules or metaphysical explanation. The Harry Potter movies do have better acting and a cuter heroine, but the holes in the plot are monstrous.

Note: congrats on the collage, it is beautifully done!

[bedub1]

Note: congrats on the collage, it is beautifully done!

Unfortunately I cannot take credit for collage. I found it on imgur, which prompted me to create this thread. I found it most enlightening also.

[PLAYER57832]

. The Harry Potter movies do have better acting and a cuter heroine, but the holes in the plot are monstrous.

The Harry Potter movies are chop spin offs of the books. The books have the real plots. Unfortunately, anyone having already seen the movies will get enough plot to spoil while missing a lot of what made the books wonderful.

Only the first movie was true to the books, though the second was close. The movies miss a lot about why Harry/Dumbledore do as they do.

[radiojake]

They're both crap

[Army of GOD]

Losers. I was into movies back when they were underground.

[radiojake]

Losers. I was into movies back when they were underground.

Movies were underground at some point?

[squishyg]

Wow, JK Rowling is a plagiarizing bitch.

Yes, because Star Wars is a completely original story that in no way borrows from anything that came before it.

They are both groundbreaking, wonderful projects that mean a lot to people. Really no need to pick a winnah here, but to be a joiner, I picked HP. If we're going movie versus movie, Star Wars absolutely rules, but in terms of the broader story and universe, I prefer Harry.

[Army of GOD]

Wow, JK Rowling is a plagiarizing bitch.

Yes, because Star Wars is a completely original story that in no way borrows from anything that came before it.

No I know, I couldn't pass up a chance to rail Rowling though.

[PLAYER57832]

The biggest problem with the poll is that Harry Potter were great books that were made into mostly just OK movies, while Star Wars was a great movie (for its time) made from barely OK books.

Also, even though Star Wars pales by today's standards, I believe it more fully stretched the technology available at the time than Harry Potter has.

[squishyg]

The biggest problem with the poll is that Harry Potter were great books that were made into mostly just OK movies, while Star Wars was a great movie (for its time) made from barely OK books.

Also, even though Star Wars pales by today's standards, I believe it more fully stretched the technology available at the time than Harry Potter has.

Star Wars is not based on a book. Books came out after the movies to continue the story.

[PLAYER57832]

The biggest problem with the poll is that Harry Potter were great books that were made into mostly just OK movies, while Star Wars was a great movie (for its time) made from barely OK books.

Also, even though Star Wars pales by today's standards, I believe it more fully stretched the technology available at the time than Harry Potter has.

Star Wars is not based on a book. Books came out after the movies to continue the story.

[sigh] It's debated, some.
The official version now is that Alan Dean Foster ghostwrote the stories. I used to know the whole bit, but not anymore, did find this, though:
http://www.cultfilmfreak.com/alandeanfoster

[Dukasaur]

Star Wars is not based on a book. Books came out after the movies to continue the story.

[sigh] It's debated, some.
The official version now is that Alan Dean Foster ghostwrote the stories. I used to know the whole bit, but not anymore, did find this, though:
http://www.cultfilmfreak.com/alandeanfoster

I don't know what you are trying to argue. The link you gave supports what you seem to be opposing.

How did George Lucas come to you about ghostwriting the novelization for “Star Wars”?
My agent was contacted to see if I might be interested in novelizing this soon-to-be-released SF film called THE STAR WARS, being done by George Lucas.

Quite clearly, the movies were basically finished and getting ready for release when Lucas began negotiating with Foster to write the books. That's a direct quote from the link you provided, so what exactly are you claiming?

Nevertheless, the "official" books are quite dull. But there were a lot of books that took basic Star Wars saga in different directions, and some of them were excellent.

[jonesthecurl]

So: I guess none of you ever watched the TV series Dead Ringers...

[johnnyrotten]

Dear lord, Jones! What on earth are you still doing here in this forsaken dump?

[jonesthecurl]

Mirror mirror

[JoshyBoy]

Not enough kids in here to vote for Harry Potter. Star Wars got my vote.

[PLAYER57832]

Star Wars is not based on a book. Books came out after the movies to continue the story.

[sigh] It's debated, some.
The official version now is that Alan Dean Foster ghostwrote the stories. I used to know the whole bit, but not anymore, did find this, though:
http://www.cultfilmfreak.com/alandeanfoster

I don't know what you are trying to argue. The link you gave supports what you seem to be opposing.

How did George Lucas come to you about ghostwriting the novelization for “Star Wars”?
My agent was contacted to see if I might be interested in novelizing this soon-to-be-released SF film called THE STAR WARS, being done by George Lucas.

Quite clearly, the movies were basically finished and getting ready for release when Lucas began negotiating with Foster to write the books. That's a direct quote from the link you provided, so what exactly are you claiming?

Not claiming anything except that there were a lot of different stories about how Star Wars came about, but now you can only find the "official" version.

Basically, there were supposed to have been several books that outlined the story or parts of it before Lucas even came into the picture. One story has it that Alan Dean's association was by no means cooincidental. It was a long time ago, though and I don't remember more details, nor could I google them.

Nevertheless, the "official" books are quite dull. But there were a lot of books that took basic Star Wars saga in different directions, and some of them were excellent.

Exactly...
My basic point was that the Harry Potter movie was a pale copy of the books, but Star Wars was an excellent movie.