Harry Potter or LoTR?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket Edge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nominus Experse

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.

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rengori

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nominus Experse

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takara

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azar

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."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firo Volondé

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miriel

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

This was almost exactly what I was going to type, so yeah, there you go.

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)

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.