Welcome to Harry Potter Forum! Below you will find many interesting threads and discussions. Enjoy.
Why, to me, Harry Potter Is Better than Lord of the Rings
It's an argument heard over and over again (albeit not as much as HP vs Twilight) but I'd like to give my two cents. I was recently on Rotten Tomatoes and saw a critic who said Potter could now be on the same level on LOTR. I went to the comments section and saw a lot of ignorant and blind hate for Harry Potter and just as much blind love for LOTR.
Now, though this it may seem I'm bashing LOTR, but it still is easily my second favorite book series and film series.
To, the most important fact: The characters
Characters make stories. The most beautiful of stories would be nothing without beautiful characters to make it interesting. The reason these stories would be considered good at all is because they have wonderful characters. For simplicity, I'll do the character comparison you see everywhere.
Frodo and Harry: This one is not even close, not by any stretch of the imagination. Harry wipes the floor with Frodo. Frodo is a weak character, and even if he didn't carry the ring that made him depressed and weak, he's still, in today's vocabulary, a douchebag. All he wants to do is go home. He does the mission because he has to, not because he wants to. Harry on the other hand will stop at nothing to be the one to kill Voldemort because he wants to. Yes, Harry also must do this, but this is made clear in HBP when Dumbledore tells Harry that it didn't matter if he had ever heard the prophecy: Harry would still want to be the one to kill Voldemort.
Ron and Sam: This argument is the only one where I can agree with liking Sam better. They are both brave, a little foolish, but in the end, loyal. I personally like Ron because he's more complex, Sam is very straightforward, simply wanting to finish the task at hand and make sure Frodo does not die in the process.
Hermione and, oh wait, NO ONE CAN FUCKING BE COMPARED TO HERMIONE! Arwen? No, she's just some hot elf. Eowyn? Yes, she's very strong, but Hermione is just as strong, courageous, smart, loyal, and has layers beyond layers on complex personalities, that Eowyn, though being one of the best characters in LOTR, can not touch. And also, Hermione is important to the central plot. Eowyn is not (despite killing the witch king).
Dumbledore and Gandalf: Gandalf is wise, powerful, and caring. Yet, the list ends there. Dumbledore is human. He has problems, complexities, and a story behind all his power and wisdom that makes him much more interesting than Gandalf. Let me put it this way: everyone loves Gandalf's character. If this is true, he must be a rather static character. Dumbledore is quite dynamic, which is why some will hate him for how he treated Harry and others will love him nonetheless.
Fred/Geroge and Merry/Pippen: First, let's set this straight: Merry and Pippen are not twins. The film does a lot to make that makes them seem very Fred/George like, but they couldn't be more different. Pippen is the energetic one, but Merry is quite wise and intelligent. Fred and George are a mischievous pair. No real comparison, I simply wanted to undo the comparison that is already there.
Voldemort and Sauron - Similar to the Dumbledore and Gandalf comparison. Voldemort is everything Sauron is, but miles beyond miles more complex.
Dementors and the Nazgul: Rather different, but comparisons arise simply because they are cloaked (the nazgul are technically invisible, but wear cloaks to have a visible form). The Nazgul are simply badass assassins. The dementors suck souls and make you feel as though you have never been happy your entire life. You tell me which is more compelling.
Those are the main character comparisons. Aragorn, Gollum, and Boromir are the three round/dynamic characters left that are truly interesting.
In Potter, Snape, Neville, Draco, Lucius, and Lupin are round/dynamic characters can I think of off the top of my head that are just as interesting.
Now that's just the characters. And characters are my favorite thing in literature, film, whatever. They define and make the story, and when one story has stronger characters than another, you can probably bet I'll enjoy it more.
The literature is what LOTR fans are quick to open their mouths to. Quickly they yap 'HARRY POTTER IS NOT WRITTEN WELL TOLKIEN GOD DERPDERPDERP.' Yes, Tolkien is a writer of which we will probably never see the likes of again; he created an entire world. Yet, they are two UTTERLY different writing styles. JRR had no intention or thought of writing children when he created this as most people these days couldn't last a more than a few chapters of LOTR. (Like honestly, if I walked around my school and asked everyone to try and read as much as they could, most would look at the length, say hell no, and go smoke pot outside. It's sick how dumb people are these days). ANYWAYS, even if you think LOTR has better writing, you must admit, it's a difficult read. One does not simply pick up a LOTR book and read it cover to cover like it's a Dr. Seuss book. Harry Potter was intended to be a children's story, at least Philosopher's Stone was. As the series matured, not only could little children enjoy it, but adults as old as they come could as well. It's a story that has no age minimum or maximum, and they aren't exactly common. For that, JKR deserves her praise.
The movies are a completely different debate. LOTR was one production, one director, and they knew the ending to their story. Harry Potter had none of this until HBP and Deathly Hallows. In Deathly Hallows, the two parts are one production, one director, and the ending of the story was finally known to the film makers. When Harry Potter finally had all of this that LOTR had from the beginning, they made, in my opinion, a better movie.
In the end, I suppose it's simply taste. For those who have read LOTR, I think the book's plot and story (the book, not the world and it's richness) is a little overrated, and you can hopefully see where I'm coming from. Whenever we hear a story of old, I simply want to fast-forward to the main plot. A lot happens that seems irrelevant to the story for the sake and point of elaborating on Middle-Earth and its vastness when I'm much more interested in the battle for middle earth, not it's history.
My taste has Harry Potter a clear victor. I don't know about you, but for me, it's not like Harry wins by a photo finish. It's not even close.
Now, though this it may seem I'm bashing LOTR, but it still is easily my second favorite book series and film series.
To, the most important fact: The characters
Characters make stories. The most beautiful of stories would be nothing without beautiful characters to make it interesting. The reason these stories would be considered good at all is because they have wonderful characters. For simplicity, I'll do the character comparison you see everywhere.
Frodo and Harry: This one is not even close, not by any stretch of the imagination. Harry wipes the floor with Frodo. Frodo is a weak character, and even if he didn't carry the ring that made him depressed and weak, he's still, in today's vocabulary, a douchebag. All he wants to do is go home. He does the mission because he has to, not because he wants to. Harry on the other hand will stop at nothing to be the one to kill Voldemort because he wants to. Yes, Harry also must do this, but this is made clear in HBP when Dumbledore tells Harry that it didn't matter if he had ever heard the prophecy: Harry would still want to be the one to kill Voldemort.
Ron and Sam: This argument is the only one where I can agree with liking Sam better. They are both brave, a little foolish, but in the end, loyal. I personally like Ron because he's more complex, Sam is very straightforward, simply wanting to finish the task at hand and make sure Frodo does not die in the process.
Hermione and, oh wait, NO ONE CAN FUCKING BE COMPARED TO HERMIONE! Arwen? No, she's just some hot elf. Eowyn? Yes, she's very strong, but Hermione is just as strong, courageous, smart, loyal, and has layers beyond layers on complex personalities, that Eowyn, though being one of the best characters in LOTR, can not touch. And also, Hermione is important to the central plot. Eowyn is not (despite killing the witch king).
Dumbledore and Gandalf: Gandalf is wise, powerful, and caring. Yet, the list ends there. Dumbledore is human. He has problems, complexities, and a story behind all his power and wisdom that makes him much more interesting than Gandalf. Let me put it this way: everyone loves Gandalf's character. If this is true, he must be a rather static character. Dumbledore is quite dynamic, which is why some will hate him for how he treated Harry and others will love him nonetheless.
Fred/Geroge and Merry/Pippen: First, let's set this straight: Merry and Pippen are not twins. The film does a lot to make that makes them seem very Fred/George like, but they couldn't be more different. Pippen is the energetic one, but Merry is quite wise and intelligent. Fred and George are a mischievous pair. No real comparison, I simply wanted to undo the comparison that is already there.
Voldemort and Sauron - Similar to the Dumbledore and Gandalf comparison. Voldemort is everything Sauron is, but miles beyond miles more complex.
Dementors and the Nazgul: Rather different, but comparisons arise simply because they are cloaked (the nazgul are technically invisible, but wear cloaks to have a visible form). The Nazgul are simply badass assassins. The dementors suck souls and make you feel as though you have never been happy your entire life. You tell me which is more compelling.
Those are the main character comparisons. Aragorn, Gollum, and Boromir are the three round/dynamic characters left that are truly interesting.
In Potter, Snape, Neville, Draco, Lucius, and Lupin are round/dynamic characters can I think of off the top of my head that are just as interesting.
Now that's just the characters. And characters are my favorite thing in literature, film, whatever. They define and make the story, and when one story has stronger characters than another, you can probably bet I'll enjoy it more.
The literature is what LOTR fans are quick to open their mouths to. Quickly they yap 'HARRY POTTER IS NOT WRITTEN WELL TOLKIEN GOD DERPDERPDERP.' Yes, Tolkien is a writer of which we will probably never see the likes of again; he created an entire world. Yet, they are two UTTERLY different writing styles. JRR had no intention or thought of writing children when he created this as most people these days couldn't last a more than a few chapters of LOTR. (Like honestly, if I walked around my school and asked everyone to try and read as much as they could, most would look at the length, say hell no, and go smoke pot outside. It's sick how dumb people are these days). ANYWAYS, even if you think LOTR has better writing, you must admit, it's a difficult read. One does not simply pick up a LOTR book and read it cover to cover like it's a Dr. Seuss book. Harry Potter was intended to be a children's story, at least Philosopher's Stone was. As the series matured, not only could little children enjoy it, but adults as old as they come could as well. It's a story that has no age minimum or maximum, and they aren't exactly common. For that, JKR deserves her praise.
The movies are a completely different debate. LOTR was one production, one director, and they knew the ending to their story. Harry Potter had none of this until HBP and Deathly Hallows. In Deathly Hallows, the two parts are one production, one director, and the ending of the story was finally known to the film makers. When Harry Potter finally had all of this that LOTR had from the beginning, they made, in my opinion, a better movie.
In the end, I suppose it's simply taste. For those who have read LOTR, I think the book's plot and story (the book, not the world and it's richness) is a little overrated, and you can hopefully see where I'm coming from. Whenever we hear a story of old, I simply want to fast-forward to the main plot. A lot happens that seems irrelevant to the story for the sake and point of elaborating on Middle-Earth and its vastness when I'm much more interested in the battle for middle earth, not it's history.
My taste has Harry Potter a clear victor. I don't know about you, but for me, it's not like Harry wins by a photo finish. It's not even close.
Comments
I'm not saying you're wrong in your opinion but I don't think Hermione is a trump card. I would argue Eowyn is a stronger female character than Hermione, by miles, but I don't actually think they're comparable in the first place
Harry Potter: better characters, better plot
Potter wins.
Harry Potter is greatly detailed.
Mysterious thing time.
These two worlds shouldn't be compared , but for Tolkien's defense he's books propagates over a much bigger spectrum.
But don't misunderstand , i love the Harry Potter series soo much.
It's wrong to say that the character's in Lord of the Rings don't have good personalities , for me Gandalf is a bigger Wizard than Dumbledore and Sauroman is a bigger Wizard than Voldemort in my opinion.
But for somebody these books can be heavy and the book's really takes it's time to get started to the battles , but in that case that makes the whole experience more natural.
Like another said later Eowyn is a stronger character than Hermoine , but we can't really compare this. Simply Middle-Earth is huge with all the dwarf's and everything in it. Tolkien must have used ages to note all the personalities beacause whilst reading these book's it likely to sit down and note what you have read or else you're memory will not remember everything you read.
But to the film's they are both great , and i can't say anything against that the Music composed by Howard Shore in Lord of the Rings are pure king!
Offtopic: I also love Narnia!
s. It just feels right that i love the books.(nd the movies) im not an expert to compare the two series back to back nd im not going to;i love Harry Potter in a way i dont for LOTR, or any other book for the matter.
And Hermione is my favorite character, so for me, she's a major trump card
Nice read irlkj
loll, jk, nbd. Call me Martin, loll, makes it easier
ok martin lol
I was kidding rich! You know I love you.
Lord Stafford.
It is the quality of ones convictions that determines success, not the number of followers. -Remus Lupin
Example..Avatar is something big but its simply a shit...
LOTR is better cuz has bigger details? plot Zero..
For me LOTR is boring...But I wouldnt say its shit......
And someone said that LOTR is better than hp Is Fact..Mr.Dumb you need to learn that word....
I don’t believe Tolkien’s characters weren’t developed but simply that they weren’t the predominate feature of that tale. So, whilst Rowling was great at making interesting characters and interweaving multiple plots successfully I think Tolkien was great at building up this entire world, a really fascinating mythology with all these cultures, languages, histories, places, characters and developing all these engrossing tales through it. I’ll admit Rings can be a harder read but I’ve found that when I get into it a bit I just can’t put it down. The whole journey just gets too immersive for me to put down until the end. Overall, it’s subjective but I think both have their own strengths and weaknesses (much like everything else) and are both very good.
I’d also add I prefer Saruman and Sauron as villians over Voldemort.
Generador de animadas GIF gifup.com
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Rowling's work is, in my opinion, better, because she focuses so much on the story, which, despite some rather deus-ex-machina moments, is quite compelling, interesting and with a lot of depth and meaning. Developed characters and story arcs, along with a very detailed fantasy world.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
And one of you said if i like Lotro better beacause the world is bigger , don't you think that's an winning factor?
What if Harry Potter were just Hogwart's , that would'nt feel complete , i think Tolkien's book must be accepted before they can be read beacause of their length. soo you most really want to read them to finish them. I think he created a masterpiece of a story and he created a base line for many other's that came after him.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
...or was this not aimed at me, llolll, if not my bad