Harry Potter Vs Lord of the Rings

[leex1528]

1 vote for Lord of the Rings please.

Lord of the Rings is kinda like Harry Potter (only for grownups) ;-)

Simply not true.

I liked the Harry Potter Series...Yes the first couple books were a little childish (same with the movies)  

But overall the characters were better in Harry Potter, was better magic in the potter movies, had more interesting villians, lots of secrecy


Just overall it was a much better movie and book...

Overall characters in Harry Potter we good : I Agree
They were Better compared to LOTR : Disagree
Harry Potter has interesting Villians: Agree
HP has Interesting Villians compared to LOTR : Disagree

To be fair I have not read the entire series of Lord of the rings, just couldn't get into them very much.

The movies though, Harry potter were better IMO.  

Basically I thought the Lord of the rings movie there was no Character Development, Besides Sam falling in love with Frodo.

The villains were all pretty much nasty orcs, and then a wizard who is bad who doesn't really use any magic ever.

Then it took 3 3 hour movies for them to walk and talk about the ring, when in reality Gandolf should have called his butterfly friends, and rode them, dropped the ring in the fire, end of movie, 10 minutes.

not 3-3 hour movies there were 4 hours.. and I guess you missed that last one hour of every movie..! :p
and I know from where you Copied those last lines, I have seen  Clerk2.
but sadly they compared it with Starwars not to a kid darama. And You know why Gandalf didn't called Eagles watch the movie again you might get it.

Fellowship of the ring:  178 minutes 2 Hours 58 Minutes
Two Towers:  179 minutes  2 hours 59 Minutes
Return of the King:  201 Minutes  3 Hours 21 Minutes

Yes I did quote it from clerks 2, they have a great point.  Fine, they couldn't fly directly into the fire, but they could have landed close by.  Had a distraction at the front, bloop, ring goes into the fire.

Or, even better they had this army of undead.  They knew that he could claim the sword from the beginning, and control the army.  He waits for 2 movies before he decides to?  He could have called them up, killed everything.  Then had frodo on red carpet to the fire, end of movie, 20 minutes.

Starwars was a lot better than Lord of the rings...?  Why wouldn't they try to compare it with that...unfortunately they couldn't pull it off

[1715661334]

1715661334

[1715661334]

1715661334

[1715661334]

1715661334

[1715661334]

1715661334

[1715661334]

1715661334

[1715661334]

1715661334

[rohnearner]

1 vote for Lord of the Rings please.

Lord of the Rings is kinda like Harry Potter (only for grownups) ;-)

Simply not true.

I liked the Harry Potter Series...Yes the first couple books were a little childish (same with the movies)  

But overall the characters were better in Harry Potter, was better magic in the potter movies, had more interesting villians, lots of secrecy


Just overall it was a much better movie and book...

Overall characters in Harry Potter we good : I Agree
They were Better compared to LOTR : Disagree
Harry Potter has interesting Villians: Agree
HP has Interesting Villians compared to LOTR : Disagree

To be fair I have not read the entire series of Lord of the rings, just couldn't get into them very much.

The movies though, Harry potter were better IMO.  

Basically I thought the Lord of the rings movie there was no Character Development, Besides Sam falling in love with Frodo.

The villains were all pretty much nasty orcs, and then a wizard who is bad who doesn't really use any magic ever.

Then it took 3 3 hour movies for them to walk and talk about the ring, when in reality Gandolf should have called his butterfly friends, and rode them, dropped the ring in the fire, end of movie, 10 minutes.

not 3-3 hour movies there were 4 hours.. and I guess you missed that last one hour of every movie..! :p
and I know from where you Copied those last lines, I have seen  Clerk2.
but sadly they compared it with Starwars not to a kid darama. And You know why Gandalf didn't called Eagles watch the movie again you might get it.

Fellowship of the ring:  178 minutes 2 Hours 58 Minutes
Two Towers:  179 minutes  2 hours 59 Minutes
Return of the King:  201 Minutes  3 Hours 21 Minutes

Yes I did quote it from clerks 2, they have a great point.  Fine, they couldn't fly directly into the fire, but they could have landed close by.  Had a distraction at the front, bloop, ring goes into the fire.

Or, even better they had this army of undead.  They knew that he could claim the sword from the beginning, and control the army.  He waits for 2 movies before he decides to?  He could have called them up, killed everything.  Then had frodo on red carpet to the fire, end of movie, 20 minutes.

Starwars was a lot better than Lord of the rings...?  Why wouldn't they try to compare it with that...unfortunately they couldn't pull it off

hmm and talking about Harry Potter Lord Voldemort should have killed that Kid on first attempt and saved the world from Harry Potter..! I don't understand what kinda lord he was when he failed to kill a few months kid from few feets.

[leex1528]

hmm and talking about Harry Potter Lord Voldemort should have killed that Kid on first attempt and saved the world from Harry Potter..! I don't understand what kinda lord he was when he failed to kill a few months kid from few feets.

Hmm, did you not watch the movie, or read the books?  They explained it with valid reason, I mean much of the book was based on that and how it happened....

[rohnearner]

hmm and talking about Harry Potter Lord Voldemort should have killed that Kid on first attempt and saved the world from Harry Potter..! I don't understand what kinda lord he was when he failed to kill a few months kid from few feets.

Hmm, did you not watch the movie, or read the books?  They explained it with valid reason, I mean much of the book was based on that and how it happened....

Wow.. Now , you are looking for explanations with valid reasons..? Talking about books..? did you read LOTR .. ? if yes you'll find thousand of reason why LOTR is bigger and better than HP.

[leex1528]

Wow.. Now , you are looking for explanations with valid reasons..? Talking about books..? did you read LOTR .. ? if yes you'll find thousand of reason why LOTR is bigger and better than HP.

Hmmm?  I am not looking for them?  You just asked an obvious question to which I replied. 

I already said I tried to read LOTR and couldn't get into it. 

Is LOTR really a book about how it is better than Harry Potter?  Seems like a weird plot for a novel....

[milan74]

I like Lord of Rings.
Not sure why, but I felt Harry Potter was boring.
Anybody have similar thoughts?

[Frscott]

Neither both are flimsy series of films

[antonioserrano72]

I don't like when people compare movies, but if asked I'd say that I prefer LOTR. And that's because it's a movie that doesn't have a teenage target audience.

[Lauda]

LOTR much better, more action. 

[ALToids]

Well they appeal to different audiences at their base.  LOTR appeals to 80 and downward from when JKR wrote the material.  HP appeals to teenagers and up.  Somewhere in the middle you'll find a 50/50 mix.

[inge]

LOTR, but the Harry Potter films are fine for a winter evening with family and friends.

[ahappymau5]

Harry Potter..

LOTR is..

I don't know, HP is just better

Well said.. i guess

[Baitty]

What? how can you even compare these? they are on total different subjects and also total different levels. Lord of the rings out classes harry potter by a large margin.

[Daniel91]

I liked both stories.
It looks HP is more for teenagers, and Lord of the Rings for older people, but still both stories are fantastic, with very deep messages about goodness and serving community, friendship, love etc.
Both stories talking about fantasy world but in the same time give us very valuable lesson about everyday life and goals...
If I will have children, I will read to them both stories.

[leex1528]

I think a lot of this question should have been based on the movies/or books.  I personally didn't enjoy the lord of the ring movies...they were sort of boring and lacked story development, explanations, and character development.

I never read the books so I am not sure how it compares to Harry Potter. 

[mcculum0010]

I like action, my vote goes to Lord of the Rings.

[rohnearner]

What? how can you even compare these? they are on total different subjects and also total different levels. Lord of the rings out classes harry potter by a large margin.

25.4% still thinks that HP is better than LOTR so I can compare.
And have enough reasons to compare movies ,like there are few characters in both the movies which are similar to each other. I'm not comparing books here as neither of the movie does any justice to books, if you'll read LOTR you'll realize there is so much difference b/w Character in the movie and the book itself.

[rohnearner]

I think a lot of this question should have been based on the movies/or books.  I personally didn't enjoy the lord of the ring movies...they were sort of boring and lacked story development, explanations, and character development.

I never read the books so I am not sure how it compares to Harry Potter. 

I was asking about the movie not the books.
You telling me LOTR lacked story development, watch it again.. maybe you'll change your opinion. I know its a long 15 hour movie [going through all the parts] but well worth it.

[Kipsy89]

I gotta say, Gandalf that old wizard dude knows how to enjoy a good smoke. He has this kick-ass pipe, man. I'd really like to know, what he smokes! Gotta be some special wizard stuff, ya know!

[KonstantinosM]

Both are fantastic.

Harry Potter has some really good advice for kids:

The mirror of Erised: Totally applicable here in bitcoinland.
Using your intelligence in order to solve problems.
Be kind to others
An examination of slavery
Don't eat like a pig, or you're like to turn into a pig (Dudley)
An examination of Depression (with the Dementors).
Betrayal, fairness and forgiveness (with Peter Pedigrew)
Twisting of the facts and journalism, with the bitch reporter
Corrupt authority figures.
Racism and Elitism (the Malfoys)
Ethical treatment of animals (without being preachy)
And a lot of drama between characters.

The list goes on.

Harry Potter loses a lot of points (IMO) for not being honest with use of source material that has been copied and pasted into the saga. Sure you can use all these Ancient Greek mythical creatures but at least say something about them being Greek! So it goes for everything else that is not original but has been pasted into this Saga.



The HP series is much more intelligent than it gets credit for. Meanwhile, the Lord of the rings is basically fight-scene porn (a good thing) interspersed with an amazing fictional world and story.

I thoroughly enjoyed both.

Lord of the rings has slightly better visuals (IMO) than Harry Potter. But HP also has amazing visuals (with the exception of the first movie).