Harry Potter or LoTR?

[Rocket Edge]

Which do you prefer? You could say that this is biased since the releases of Harry Potter recently both in film & book, but I believe your head can get around that fact, and that you can pick the one that you genuinely like more.

[Venom]

Dont like either. )=

[Odaisé Gaelach]

Basing it on nothing but the books... Harry Potter is good, but Lord of the Rings is better.

[Garnie]

i love both but i prefure lotr because of the beauty tolkin put to that world!

[Psychotic]

Lord of the Rings by a long way. HP is good, LotR is great.

[Tavrobel]

LotR. Potter can't even compare.

[Nifleheim7]

Lord of the Rings of course.

[Rocket Edge]

Bah, you guys make me sick. Harry for me, i've been obsessed since 1997. The Harry Potter books are better writen and are more exciting (not including the first two though). The films however are a completely differant story.

That being said I do love LoTR as well, but HP takes the biscuit.

[Obsidian]

For me, HP has much more plot intrigue and LotR has a much bigger cool-factor.

[Ouch!]

I refuse to make a decision until I can bring myself to finish LotR. My friend told me everything that happened ages ago, and every time I try to pick it up now, it's like... what's the point?

That said, I respect LotR immensely for how it has revolutionized that fantasy genre. It pretty much defined the fantasy archetype (specifically it strengthened the Norse influence in modern fantasy).

Harry Potter is fun to read, and I enjoy it a whole lot, but it will never be able to define the genre as LotR has.

[Resha]

Lord of the Rings, hands down? :confused: I stopped comparing a long time ago.

[Araciel]

i never compared...they're incomparable you might say
LOTR FTUW

[Rye]

I enjoy Harry Potter more, because it's easier for me, but Lord of the Rings is just classic, Tolkein is the father of fantasy. LoTR by far.

[qwertysaur]

The wheel of time is better than both, to me at least.:)

[Zeromus_X]

Harry Potter. Never really been too much of a LotR fan.

[Cookie]

Lord of the Rings by a long way. HP is good, LotR is great.

[XxSephirothxX]

A kid's book series compared to the trilogy that basically established fantasy as a valid genre in the 20th century and influenced literature for decades to come? Kind of a sad comparison. Lord of the Rings all the way.

[ljkkjlcm9]

A kid's book series compared to the trilogy that basically established fantasy as a valid genre in the 20th century and influenced literature for decades to come? Kind of a sad comparison. Lord of the Rings all the way.
QFT

THE JACKEL

[Takara]

It's like comparing apples and oranges. I love them both equally, but for different reasons.

[Pouring Rain]

Lord of the Rings. I'm more interested in it than Harry Potter. I read The Sorcerer's Stone, and I wasn't amazed with it like I was with LotR.

[Rocket Edge]

A kid's book series compared to the trilogy that basically established fantasy as a valid genre in the 20th century and influenced literature for decades to come? Kind of a sad comparison. Lord of the Rings all the way.
Are you serious? JK Rowling almost single handedly brought reading back into a generation at a time when it was been seriously overshadowed by Video Games & other such things. Tolken influencened literature for decades to come, sure, but so will Rowling. Theres no comparison to the impact that Rowling made with the release of 'Harry Potter', than Tolken did with the release of 'Lord of the Rings'. Also, you automatically make it sound a little pathetic when you call it a kids book series, when the books are open to every kind of audience (hence the adult and normal book versions).

[10-Breaker]

I give my biscuit to LotR.

[bipper]

LoTR the movies and HP can hardly be compared. The magic in HP was so much better. The fact that HP could destroy Gandalf is hilarious, imo. However, I would say the LOTR was given more money, more time, and the didn't have to worry about the affects of puberty on any of the actors, Except legalos.

Naturally, LOTR was better. HP does put up a good fight, but just not well enough.

[Zante]

Books: Harry wins, LotR had too many boring passages, and the story didn't flow that well.
Movies: LotR is one of the best films ever made, while the Harry Potter ones never impressed me much.

[I Don't Need A Name]

Harry Potter wins hands down in books, LoTR drones on and on without grasping the reader (i got halfway into Fellowship and stopped out of bordem)
LoTR wins with films because the Harry Potter ones are terrible!

[Resha]

JK Rowling almost single handedly brought reading back into a generation at a time when it was been seriously overshadowed by Video Games & other such things.
Doesn't say much for the generation in question. And HP would never exist without LoTR. Not much would. LoTR is the ultimate root of all things <3

[Discord]

Harry Potter is much better when it comes to intensity. LotR is a little too slow-paced for me. Then again, it's much older. I'm no fan of wizard-boys though, so I guess that puts me on the Tolkien's side.

[Burtsplurt]

LoTR. I find it a bit bizarre that people are comparing Harry Potter with LoTR.

[Discord]

LoTR. I find it a bit bizarre that people are comparing Harry Potter with LoTR.

Uhu... they're slightly different.

[Peegee]

This thread made me find out why Cho Chang and Harry broke up (it's not revealed in the movie which I didn't read the book for, and I don't remember what happened in the 6th book).

I like Harry Potter because both the book and the movies are enjoyable, and while LOTR was a good series of movies, the books were typically excessive narratives about scenario, politics, and running around, with fights taking up maybe a page or two. The movie was the opposite.

But mostly, I like HP because it is more easily related to, and so I have taken a liking to the characters and want to know what happens to them.

HP being an unfinished symphony is also a factor.

[XxSephirothxX]

A kid's book series compared to the trilogy that basically established fantasy as a valid genre in the 20th century and influenced literature for decades to come? Kind of a sad comparison. Lord of the Rings all the way.
Are you serious? JK Rowling almost single handedly brought reading back into a generation at a time when it was been seriously overshadowed by Video Games & other such things. Tolken influencened literature for decades to come, sure, but so will Rowling. Theres no comparison to the impact that Rowling made with the release of 'Harry Potter', than Tolken did with the release of 'Lord of the Rings'. Also, you automatically make it sound a little pathetic when you call it a kids book series, when the books are open to every kind of audience (hence the adult and normal book versions).
You can't deny Harry Potter was a series started for and specifically aimed at kids/"young adults," even if the appeal has spread. A G rated movie is always advertised as a family film, but typically it's just for the kids.

Harry Potter has done wonders to get kids to read, although I can't tell you how annoyed I get when I hear people talk about reading and say things like "Oh yeah, Harry Potter is so great! I don't read anything else, though." There's a lot out there, and plenty of it is as good or better than Harry Potter, and while I'm sure plenty of kids will find that out, a lot of them won't. Lord of the Rings is literature, and its influence and complexity really isn't comparable to Harry Potter, except maybe in the category of pop culture.

[Rengori]

WTF, how can one possibly compare Harry Potter to Lord of the Rings without a brain hemorrhage?

Lord of the Rings - no smurfing contest. It's like insects standing against gods.
Nommels hits the nail on the head.

[Brennan]

LoTR seemes better than HP (lol) to me, so LoTR

[Sweet Beloved]

Lord Of The Rings.
I really didn't get into the whole Harry Potter thing.
I mean, it's a pretty good movie, and I heard the books are pretty good, but I just got more into LotR a bit more.

[Vikeve]

Lord of the Rings ftw c'mon Harry Potter is good but its not epic.

[Ramza Beoulve]

WTF, how can one possibly compare Harry Potter to Lord of the Rings without a brain hemorrhage?

Lord of the Rings - no smurfing contest. It's like insects standing against gods.
Nommels hits the nail on the head.
QFT.

[Firo Volondé]

Damn you, no third option. :(

I really couldn't decide. HP is undoubtably my favourite fantasy book series (though JK can't hold a candle to Douglas Adams, and David Gemmell comes pretty damn close to taking the crown), but LotR is equally clearly the best fantasy movie. Ever.


You can't deny Harry Potter was a series started for and specifically aimed at kids/"young adults," even if the appeal has spread. A G rated movie is always advertised as a family film, but typically it's just for the kids.

You seem to have forgotten that LotR started with the Hobbit, that was aimed at children as well. :rolleyes2

In Australia OotP was rated M. In particular the later, longer books have gotten darker. Put the first three books into one category and you've got a LotR clone with one extra book.

In the end, really, my opinion is this:


It's like comparing apples and oranges. I love them both equally, but for different reasons.


I can't tell you how annoyed I get when I hear people talk about reading and say things like "Oh yeah, Harry Potter is so great! I don't read anything else, though."


Harry Potter wins hands down in books, LoTR drones on and on without grasping the reader (i got halfway into Fellowship and stopped out of bordem)
LoTR wins with films because the Harry Potter ones are terrible!

[Miriel]

The movies are coming from such completely different places that it's silly to compare. I don't think the HP movies were ever made with the intentions of engaging in superb film making. They were made to capitalize on a currently huge and popular franchise. Of course there's a certain level of of skill and craftsmanship involved with the HP movies, but the LotR movies involved a HUGE risk and a risk taken for no other reason than to create amazing films about books that the director and screenwriters were passionate about. Virtually every major studio turned down the project when it was first pitched. A 3 part fantasy series? Pfft. Harry Potter was always guaranteed to make money regardless of whether it was great or not.

But Peter Jackson and company kept pursuing the LotR project, even though people were telling them they were insane because they wanted to redefine fantasy in films. Their goal wasn't to just cash in on a franchise, it was to create wonderful films. And they really had to push themselves, and push the films to be amazing. To prove to people how fantasy films can go beyond what had previously been seen of fantasy films.

The end results reflect the original intentions. One became a popcorn summer flick, and the other became the first fantasy film to ever be recognized and loved by both prestigious film organizations and the general populace alike.

As for the books. I love Harry Potter. I love Lord of the Rings. But Harry Potter will always be an easy breezy sort of read. Fun, entertaining, light. Lord of the Rings on the other hand sends shivers down my spine, it's so stunningly beautiful. Tolkien was a master linguist and it shows in his work. The way he composes his words, structures his sentences, it's incredibly poetic. It's majestic and grand and oozes with depth, back story, and history.

[XxSephirothxX]

You seem to have forgotten that LotR started with the Hobbit, that was aimed at children as well. :rolleyes2
I didn't forget about The Hobbit, I just didn't think it was really a part of the discussion. It's a prelude to Lord of the Rings, so I guess it could be considered a part of the series, but in my mind Lord of the Rings is Fellowship-Return of the King, all of which are at a pretty damn high reading level.

The Hobbit is definitely much lighter reading, and while I would prefer it to any Harry Potter book out there (I prefer it to Lord of the Rings itself, in fact) I wouldn't argue that it's much deeper or more challenging than a Harry Potter book.

Miriel made my own point better than I could. Harry Potter has definite value in the light reading vein, but isn't comparable to everything that went into making LotR such a lasting masterpiece.


Of course there's a certain level of of skill and craftsmanship involved with the HP movies, but the LotR movies involved a HUGE risk and a risk taken for no other reason than to create amazing films about books that the director and screenwriters were passionate about. Virtually every major studio turned down the project when it was first pitched. A 3 part fantasy series? Pfft. Harry Potter was always guaranteed to make money regardless of whether it was great or not.

One thing that I found really interesting and impressive about the Lord of the Rings film project was that originally, Peter Jackson was pitching the idea of doing two films, because he didn't think the studios would go for three movies. And after he'd been denied by quite a few studios, he talked to New Line, and they said something like "Well, wouldn't it make more sense to make three movies?" So he ended up getting to do even more with the project than he'd hoped for. :p

[Northcrest]

I never understood the first Lord of the Rings so I like Harry Potter alot more.

[han_keep_smilin]

i prefer harry potter they are more my type of film/ book

[Ifirit's Fury]

Lord of the rings...........by far

[Rase]

Books: Harry wins, LotR had too many boring passages, and the story didn't flow that well.
Movies: LotR is one of the best films ever made, while the Harry Potter ones never impressed me much.
This was almost exactly what I was going to type, so yeah, there you go.

[blim]

LOTR is IMO far superior to Potter. the potter books are enjoyable (more so than the films) but dont come close to the depth and emotional effect of LOTR (once you get pasts Tolkens over description of everything)

[Albel]

Based on the books, Harry Potter.
Based on the films, LoTR.
Mainly because the HP books are great but they flopped it with the films.

[Serapy]

Bah, you guys make me sick. Harry for me, i've been obsessed since 1997. The Harry Potter books are better writen and are more exciting (not including the first two though). The films however are a completely differant story.

That being said I do love LoTR as well, but HP takes the biscuit.

agreed, I'm probably biased because i havent seen lotr but the second when i saw the plots of the lotr movies, i disliked them

[BardTard]

HARRY POTTER!

[The Unknown Guru]

LoTR is infinitely better in both the creativity and writing departments. The movies were better, too.

[50calCerberus]

i think both r cool...but harry potter is more of a family or kids series..u kno...lotr has all the fantasy action...wars and magic and swords all that good stuff...o ya who could forget the bow and arrows...lol:D

[sephireland]

Oh please, a no brainer this. Rings all the way. HP on the page is pretty good. On the screen 1 and 2 were AWFUL. 3 and 4 were very good and the latest one was OK.

Lord of the Rings on both page and screen delivers on a much deeper level than little Harry and is therefore much more satisfying. Add to that the fact that HP borrows heavily from LOTR and there really is only one winner.

[Old Manus]

Even though I'm supposed to feel obliged to like LotR better because everyone else does and it's such a famous piece of literature blah blah yawn, I read the first one and it was so heavy going and boring that I skipped The Council of Elrond because it was so endless and irrelevant. Therefore I prefer HP, which was the original question.

[sephireland]

like LotR better because everyone else does and it's such a famous piece of literature

'nuff said.:)

[Miriel]

Even though I'm supposed to feel obliged to like LotR better because everyone else does and it's such a famous piece of literature blah blah yawn, I read the first one and it was so heavy going and boring that I skipped The Council of Elrond because it was so endless and irrelevant.

I think if you read the Silmarillion, the Council of Elrond scene would seem a little less boring and a lot more fascinating. Yes, it's very full of exposi<b></b>tion and tons of obscure references to Arnor, Doriath, Gondolin, Númenor, Eärendil, Hurin, Turin, and Beren. People and places that would mean very little to someone who hasn't read the Silmarillion. But if you have read it, it gives such a tremendous amount of depth to the whole Council of Elrond chapter. When you understand just how much history is behind the story of LotR that's when you see what kind of genius Tolkien really was.

[Bunny]

The accesibility of Harry Potter makes it infinitely better. Lord of the Rings was great in defining the genre of fantasy, but it wasn't written for everyone. That being said, my opinion matters for about nothing, as I've read The Hobbit and none of Harry Potter.

[Zante]

I got Silmarillion, but simply couldn't finish reading it. The writing was pretty awful in my opinion, it read like a boring history book.

[Miriel]

I got Silmarillion, but simply couldn't finish reading it. The writing was pretty awful in my opinion, it read like a boring history book.

I thought the writing was beautifully poetic. There are some passages in the book that just gives you shivers it's so eloquent. I'm not saying it's an easy read, but it certainly is a beautiful one.

[Zante]

Never liked poetry much, so I guess thats why I didn't like it. :)
The writing style just isn't my thing, I had the same complains about the Children of Hurin.

[Tavrobel]

I got Silmarillion, but simply couldn't finish reading it. The writing was pretty awful in my opinion, it read like a boring history book.

That's why you read the Histories of ME. Tevildo is like cat macros, without the macro and all of the awesome.

[Heath]

I find Harry Potter to be nicer light reading, but I think that technically Lord of the Rings is quite superior. I'd consider myself more of a HP fan than a LotR fan really, but on the whole I prefer LotR I'm just not as knowledgeable about it as I am with the Harry Potter series. Both fantastic books by fantastic storytellers.

[scrumpleberry]

I think Harry Potter has the potential to become as iconic in the future as LoTR is now, and people scoff at it because it isn't as "epic" as LoTR. That being said, LoTR is a much more beautiful piece of writing, but I literally fell in love with the Harry Potter characters (Bella, Voldie, Neville, Snape, Luna, Tonks, Lup...yeah, you get my point.)

And I could not be bothered to read all of Aragorn's ballads.

[Tallulah]

Film: Lord of the Rings > Harry Potter

Books: Harry Potter> Lord of the Rings

I really enjoyed the hary Potter books, as they had an element of mystery to them, i.e. Harry and pals having to work out who did what, where something was, or generally getting to the bottom of some deep, dark secret. Most of the books were all very suspenseful, and I enjoyed that.

Snape was my favourite character, he was wickedly cruel to Harry and his comrades sometimes, and it made me laugh. He could have been really badass, but part of his characterisation (all the grief about losing Lily held him back.

[Ryth]

Lord Of The Rings, no contest.

[Depression Moon]

You really shouldn't compare these two when they're so different.

[Breine]

Definitely Lord of the Rings both when it comes to the books and the movies. The Harry Potter books are still great, but the movies have all disappointed me on one level or another. LotR is just all-around fantasy goodness.