The one that isn't based on a little kid and his loser friends and the hi-jinks they participate in at their crappy little school.
haha i used to be banned HAHA so now im JD317² to the second power alt 0718 hopefully i wont have to use JD317³
Since I haven't read the last Harry Potter book yet, I'm gonna reserve judgement on that... though in the end, I actually think they're different enough to where it's simply unfair to call one or the other "better." They're just different. That's the books. The movies though... COME ON! Anyone who actually puts the Potter movies in the same league as the LOTR movies is in serious denial. The later Potter movies lose WAY too much in translation. To say the fourth & fifth installments felt rushed plot-wise would be the understatement of the century. Come on. Yeah, I'm a nerd, I know.
"Movie-wise" it is not fair to compare LOTR to HP coz LOTR only had 3 episodes. ANOES (A Nightmare on Elm Street) will be a better fit. Didn't read the books at all. But I felt asleep watching movie LOTR 1 and never watch LOTR 2 & 3. I watch all HP movies though. So I guess HP is more like my cup of tea.
LoTR movies for me. It was on a grander scale, battles were a lot better and it never had flat spots. I actually feel asleep watching Order of the Phoenix. The students practicing magic was the lamest section of the movie. Even the climatic battle at the end was weak compared to some scenes from LoTR!
Book-wise? I read the LOTR trilogy so many years ago I've lost count, but I have to say they were a bit boring. What made the LOTR books unique was the fact that they were groundbreaking. It was the first mainstream fantasy series ever written, and Tolkien took years to visualize and create his world. In comparison to modern-day fantasy stories though, they're a bit lacking in pacing and overall organization. Harry Potter books are neither groundbreaking nor particularly well-written, but they're very fun to read. I'd have to give the nod to Harry Potter on this front. Tolkien crammed so much of his imagination into his books, it came across as a crapload of unnecessary information. However, I do admit that without LOTR, Harry Potter and many other modern-day fantasy series probably wouldn't exist. Movie-wise? LOTR blows Harry Potter away. Peter Jackson did a good job of eliminating some unnecessary things from the books (although purists will say otherwise). They had a much more epic feel to them as well.
They both have had pretty significant cultural impact and great story telling. I lean towards Lord of the Rings more because of the vast attention to detail and the maturity of the writing. Certainly the literary impact of Lord of the Rings heavily outweighs Harry Potter, which in many ways is actually derivative of Lord of the Rings. That said, Harry Potter is more enjoyable to actually read, so I see where you're coming from. But I don't think you can pick against Lord of the Rings. It's the gold standard.
Which one is best? Here's my breakdown: Plot/Storyline: LOTR Books: LOTR Screenplay/Movie: LOTR Movie Special Effects: LOTR Amount of us geeks Going to a BBS to talk about a poll: LOTR Fake British Accents: LOTR x Hot Fantasy Chicks: LOTR -------------------------- Answer: LOTR<sup>5</sup>
I have to agree it's difficult to choose against Lord of the Rings simply due to the sheer impact it had on modern literature. Pick up any book by popular contemporary fantasy authors like Eddings, Feist, and Jordan, and right away readers can see the influence of Tolkien. Lord of the Rings singlehandedly launched a new genre. If I had no prior knowledge of the literary impact and someone just gave me a copy of both series to read...I have to say I'd enjoy reading Harry Potter a lot more. The LOTR world is much more expansive, but the complexity of the various backstories (prior to the events of the trilogy), and mythos of Tolkien's world take away from his storytelling. It's difficult to just enjoy a story when there's enough material to fill a history textbook. In my opinion, Rowling's writing (perhaps because it's simple) is better at conveying a story.
I don't care for either but if I had to vote, I would say LOTR by a landslide. I remember a few months into my marriage, my wife and daughter tried to get me to watch one of the Harry Potter movies on TV and I told them it wasn't happening.
I have been SOOOOO tempted, but holding out on my pre order to come in.....I like the tactile feel of the book in my hands. DD
The LOTR got me into fantasy Books. It was the first Fantasy book i ever read. Now I read fantasy all the time. I love it. And like Kyrodis said, all the current fantasy books are influenced by the LOTR. also it is obvious that LOTR was writen for a different audience than HP, HP really is a childrens book(which is also fun for adults to read), and LOTR is not a childrens book. Also the movies of LOTR are Much much better than the HP films. But again it is for a different audience.
Man, LOTR 2 and 3 are much faster paced movies, I have a feeling if you watched "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King" you will like them a lot. They are excellent........if not.....I will buy you a beer.......give it a go. DD
i want to read Harry Potter. i really, really want to. i just can't get over the fact that it's about a little boy and magic. just seems too juvenile to me. am i wrong?
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b0sc-gS9AqM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b0sc-gS9AqM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
