No, you clearly misunderstand. I'm admiring you for putting that. I don't mean that it is just your individual opinion, i mean you are acknowledging that it is an opinion, and not necessarily correct.
No, you clearly misunderstand. I'm admiring you for putting that. I don't mean that it is just your individual opinion, i mean you are acknowledging that it is an opinion, and not necessarily correct.
I of course choose the Potter books over LotR because I can't stand Tolkien's writing, but for the films, LotR wins hands down with no contest. Potter is not even competition against the best trilogy I've ever seen.
PS. You don't have to preface opinions with "in my opinion" in threads such as these because it's already assumed. So people who get butthurt, don't.
Pottermore username: DustBlade76
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
I of course choose the Potter books over LotR because I can't stand Tolkien's writing, but for the films, LotR wins hands down with no contest. Potter is not even competition against the best trilogy I've ever seen.
PS. You don't have to preface opinions with "in my opinion" in threads such as these because it's already assumed. So people who get butthurt, don't.
This is exactly what I think. Even though I can stand Tolkien's writing.
Alright, I never bothered reading the pages of discussion, but since you mentioned Hermione in your original post as a good character, I have to disagree with that one. Hermione is the least well developed of most of Rowling's characters. In the books she is only too happy to explore the flaws of other characters, but she almost completely avoids showing Hermione's flaws and merely alludes to them occasionally. Of course, we know why this is. Hermione is an author-avatar, and by detailing Hermione's flaws Rowling would be confessing to her own flaws, which she is apparently unable to do. In the books Hermione exists purely to spew exposition. Next to Ron and Harry she is, unfortunately, a cardboard cut out of a character. There's just nothing interesting about her at all, because Rowling avoids going into Hermione's shortcomings.
And someone else mentioned something I'd like to bring up that I don't like either. How the reason for Voldemort being unable to love because he was conceived under love potion. I don't like that because it goes completely against the theme of how it is our choice how we act, because Voldemort has absolutely no choice how he acts. Also, it seems ridiculous that he is the first person ever to be like that. Surely other people had been conceived under the influence of love potion and so there must have been lots of Voldemorts roaming about. It's a similar case with the Lily sacrifice thing. Is Rowling trying to say NOBODY sacrificed themselves for another person ever in the history of wizardry before Harry?
To me both those things cheapen the story, and I'm glad Yates cut the whole part where Voldemort was not able to touch anyone because Harry had been willing to die for them. That was so stupid. Then all they would have to do would be go about saying "if you are willing to die in someone's place then Voldemort is powerless".
And someone else mentioned something I'd like to bring up that I don't like either. How the reason for Voldemort being unable to love because he was conceived under love potion. I don't like that because it goes completely against the theme of how it is our choice how we act, because Voldemort has absolutely no choice how he acts. Also, it seems ridiculous that he is the first person ever to be like that. Surely other people had been conceived under the influence of love potion and so there must have been lots of Voldemorts roaming about.
It was never stated that he became evil because his mother used love potion on his father.
To me both those things cheapen the story, and I'm glad Yates cut the whole part where Voldemort was not able to touch anyone because Harry had been willing to die for them. That was so stupid. Then all they would have to do would be go about saying "if you are willing to die in someone's place then Voldemort is powerless".
I'm undecided whether I like it or not. It mirrors Lily's sacrifice, but on the other hand it makes it less exciting. Visually, it would look stupid if his spells bounced off people like it did with Nagini (which is logical as she is a horcrux). I like how that was adapted. Neville said that Harry was still with them in their hearts and encouraged the group to continue fighting so that he wouldn't die in vain. Concerning Lily's sacrifice, it was said to be old magic. I like it because it shows Voldemort's lack of understanding regarding love. One would assume that Harry was not the first person it happened to, but what made him special was because he stopped the darkest wizard of all time as a baby. What I find interesting is that Yates/Kloves interpreted the situation of Lily casting herself between them as a shield to mean that the curse immediately rebounded back on Voldemort.
And someone else mentioned something I'd like to bring up that I don't like either. How the reason for Voldemort being unable to love because he was conceived under love potion. I don't like that because it goes completely against the theme of how it is our choice how we act, because Voldemort has absolutely no choice how he acts. Also, it seems ridiculous that he is the first person ever to be like that. Surely other people had been conceived under the influence of love potion and so there must have been lots of Voldemorts roaming about.
I believe Rowling said this in an interview. I believe she said it was symbolic how he was concieved under a love potion, not that it actually made him immune to love.
Alright, I never bothered reading the pages of discussion, but since you mentioned Hermione in your original post as a good character, I have to disagree with that one. Hermione is the least well developed of most of Rowling's characters. In the books she is only too happy to explore the flaws of other characters, but she almost completely avoids showing Hermione's flaws and merely alludes to them occasionally. Of course, we know why this is. Hermione is an author-avatar, and by detailing Hermione's flaws Rowling would be confessing to her own flaws, which she is apparently unable to do. In the books Hermione exists purely to spew exposition. Next to Ron and Harry she is, unfortunately, a cardboard cut out of a character. There's just nothing interesting about her at all, because Rowling avoids going into Hermione's shortcomings.
I have similar feelings about this. It felt odd to me that Hermione was super smart, very pretty (the number of boys interested in her does suggest this) and really great under pressure (In DH). It did annoy me to no end that she showed show sign of weakness to the horcrux or the days without food, she seemed to get Harry and Ron out of almost every sticky situation, she’s never called out on being wrong. She just never seemed like a particularly flawed character - especially compared to Harry and Ron who each have their fair share of well established flaws.
In the movies, I think Peter jacskon did a better job. He don't care about the lenght of the movies that are like 3hours each one and longer and the extended edition.But, I can't say that in the OOTP the director didn't do it.It just STUPID WB didn't want it!!!-.- But for the action and war sequence, I must say LOTR beat easily HP.
Two completely different stories from two completely different eras. Not comparable imo.
Interesting to read the opinions here but I can't say one is better than the other.
Potter is very character rich. LOTR is incredibly deep and detailed. I enjoy both for different reasons.
LOTR was one of a kind when it was written and Potter, it can be argued, is much the same thing now.
Also, another big difference. They are completely different styles of books. When one was started it was a children's book and evolved and the other was never, to me, a children's story.
I am a huge fan of Harry Potter, I grew up with the serie , reading the books , nd watching the movies .. but if we want to compare LOTR with Potter , LOTR wins the camp ,
We are not talking about charters , but the thoughts of generations ... nd Tolkien will always be the father of modern fantasy , I am not saying that because I love LOTR , but because LOTR is not on the same level ... u can read articles about that , because I am not sure if I am able to explain the whole thingy
nd agree with u accio , LOTR is not '' a children's story ''
Two completely different stories from two completely different eras. Not comparable imo.
Interesting to read the opinions here but I can't say one is better than the other.
Potter is very character rich. LOTR is incredibly deep and detailed. I enjoy both for different reasons.
LOTR was one of a kind when it was written and Potter, it can be argued, is much the same thing now.
Also, another big difference. They are completely different styles of books. When one was started it was a children's book and evolved and the other was never, to me, a children's story.
Two completely different stories from two completely different eras. Not comparable imo.
Interesting to read the opinions here but I can't say one is better than the other.
Potter is very character rich. LOTR is incredibly deep and detailed. I enjoy both for different reasons.
LOTR was one of a kind when it was written and Potter, it can be argued, is much the same thing now.
Also, another big difference. They are completely different styles of books. When one was started it was a children's book and evolved and the other was never, to me, a children's story.
THIS. x 2
Oh and by the way Log, in your last sentence, "one" refers to LOTR and "the other" refers to HP, right ? The unusual thing is that the references could be swapped and the sentence would still be valid. :O And THAT, in my opinion, sums up the discussion.
Two completely different stories from two completely different eras. Not comparable imo.
Interesting to read the opinions here but I can't say one is better than the other.
Potter is very character rich. LOTR is incredibly deep and detailed. I enjoy both for different reasons.
LOTR was one of a kind when it was written and Potter, it can be argued, is much the same thing now.
Also, another big difference. They are completely different styles of books. When one was started it was a children's book and evolved and the other was never, to me, a children's story.
THIS. x 2
Oh and by the way Log, in your last sentence, "one" refers to LOTR and "the other" refers to HP, right ? The unusual thing is that the references could be swapped and the sentence would still be valid. :O And THAT, in my opinion, sums up the discussion.
The former is Harry Potter and the latter is LOTR. I don't believe LOTR was ever intended as a children's book and I am not sure it is considered so now. HP was started that way and the first 6 are considered children's and then young adult's books. I don't think they could be swapped.
I got confused because I had read this thing in Wikipedia some time back: The story(LOTR) began as a sequel to Tolkien's earlier, less complex children's fantasy novel The Hobbit (1937), but eventually developed into a much larger work...... So I had assumed that a sequel to a children's novel would naturally be called a children's novel ( at least when Tolkien started it). And that started the confusion, after I read your statement.
I got confused because I had read this thing in Wikipedia some time back: The story(LOTR) began as a sequel to Tolkien's earlier, less complex children's fantasy novel The Hobbit (1937), but eventually developed into a much larger work...... So I had assumed that a sequel to a children's novel would be naturally called a children's novel. ( at least when Tolkien started it). And that started the confusion, after I read your statement.
Tolkien was planning to make LOTR children´s novel but the whole thingy became bigger nd deeper ...
I got confused because I had read this thing in Wikipedia some time back: The story(LOTR) began as a sequel to Tolkien's earlier, less complex children's fantasy novel The Hobbit (1937), but eventually developed into a much larger work...... So I had assumed that a sequel to a children's novel would be naturally called a children's novel. ( at least when Tolkien started it). And that started the confusion, after I read your statement.
Tolkien was planning to make LOTR children´s novel but the whole thingy became bigger nd deeper ...
Yes, The Hobbit is much more of a children's story than LOTR. I guess it depends on people's own interpretation. The writing style and content of LOTR would be a little more difficult for a young kid to get through. Not to say they couldn't but it is a lot to keep up with.
I actually heard that Tolkien wrote about his own life through LOTR , I have read some articles about how some charters dead ( the same as Tolkien´s mother nd wife << not sure , but something like this ) ,
nd that the whole middle earth´s war was an example of the 1st nd 2nd world wars or something .. what I try to say is '' Tolkien used a special nd unike style creating LOTR , nd exactly that´s why the call him '' Father of moden fantasy '' '' .
Comments
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Sorry, I tend to be a grammar nazi
Lord Stafford.
^ That would be laughing if they worked...
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
PS. You don't have to preface opinions with "in my opinion" in threads such as these because it's already assumed. So people who get butthurt, don't.
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Mysterious thing time.
And someone else mentioned something I'd like to bring up that I don't like either. How the reason for Voldemort being unable to love because he was conceived under love potion. I don't like that because it goes completely against the theme of how it is our choice how we act, because Voldemort has absolutely no choice how he acts. Also, it seems ridiculous that he is the first person ever to be like that. Surely other people had been conceived under the influence of love potion and so there must have been lots of Voldemorts roaming about. It's a similar case with the Lily sacrifice thing. Is Rowling trying to say NOBODY sacrificed themselves for another person ever in the history of wizardry before Harry?
To me both those things cheapen the story, and I'm glad Yates cut the whole part where Voldemort was not able to touch anyone because Harry had been willing to die for them. That was so stupid. Then all they would have to do would be go about saying "if you are willing to die in someone's place then Voldemort is powerless".
I have similar feelings about this. It felt odd to me that Hermione was super smart, very pretty (the number of boys interested in her does suggest this) and really great under pressure (In DH). It did annoy me to no end that she showed show sign of weakness to the horcrux or the days without food, she seemed to get Harry and Ron out of almost every sticky situation, she’s never called out on being wrong. She just never seemed like a particularly flawed character - especially compared to Harry and Ron who each have their fair share of well established flaws.
Interesting to read the opinions here but I can't say one is better than the other.
Potter is very character rich. LOTR is incredibly deep and detailed. I enjoy both for different reasons.
LOTR was one of a kind when it was written and Potter, it can be argued, is much the same thing now.
Also, another big difference. They are completely different styles of books. When one was started it was a children's book and evolved and the other was never, to me, a children's story.
but if we want to compare LOTR with Potter , LOTR wins the camp ,
We are not talking about charters , but the thoughts of generations ... nd Tolkien will always be the father of modern fantasy ,
I am not saying that because I love LOTR , but because LOTR is not on the same level ... u can read articles about that , because I am not sure if I am able to explain the whole thingy
nd agree with u accio , LOTR is not '' a children's story ''
Oh and by the way Log, in your last sentence, "one" refers to LOTR and "the other" refers to HP, right ? The unusual thing is that the references could be swapped and the sentence would still be valid. :O And THAT, in my opinion, sums up the discussion.
The story(LOTR) began as a sequel to Tolkien's earlier, less complex children's fantasy novel The Hobbit (1937), but eventually developed into a much larger work......
So I had assumed that a sequel to a children's novel would naturally be called a children's novel ( at least when Tolkien started it). And that started the confusion, after I read your statement.
Tolkien was planning to make LOTR children´s novel but the whole thingy became bigger nd deeper ...
I actually heard that Tolkien wrote about his own life through LOTR , I have read some articles about how some charters dead ( the same as Tolkien´s mother nd wife << not sure , but something like this ) ,
nd that the whole middle earth´s war was an example of the 1st nd 2nd world wars or something .. what I try to say is '' Tolkien used a special nd unike style creating LOTR , nd exactly that´s why the call him '' Father of moden fantasy '' '' .