|
I really really like Harry Potter, the books are better, the movies are better. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Harry Potter is way better. I watched the first scenes of lord of the rings and was confused, its
like star wars on land. All about magical fairy people. People can actually have some belief in
harry potter (even though its all fiction) The fact that some of it is set in London kings cross is
a good example.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm a die hard HP fan. I even (blushing) like Professor Snape. Does that make me weird? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Harry Potter has spanned ten books (three of which were not part of the "series"), will feature
eight movies, has sold countless Halloween costumes, video games, trading cards, merchandise, and it
will even have its own theme park area in 2010 at Universal's Islands of Adventure. Now Lord of the
Rings, what has that provided us with? Three movies, four books, some video games? That's all?
Point made. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Harry Potter is pretty good. It's a great read, will probably be known as one of the best series of
our time, and the movies aren't too bad either. I enjoy Harry Potter more than Lord of the
Rings.
Although, I must give credit to LOTR. Tolkien spent 11 YEARS creating his beloved story, and it's
actually pretty good. It would probably be a better read for older people though. While I hated
the movies, I can't argue against 11 Academy Awards. Peter Jackson did a phenomenal job on the
movies. Can't wait for The Hobbit to come out! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Harry Potter is hands down better reading. The movies are kind of tied.
Don't get me wrong, I did really enjoy Lord of the Rings. I actually liked those movies better
than I did the book. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I 110% agree. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Harry books are brilliant and easy for anyone to read but the Lord of the Rings books were so
boring, it just seemed to go on forever and not actually get any where. Movie wise I have an equal
appreciation for the films, I feel the Lord of the Rings is acted out better and never gets boring.
While in Harry Potter I love the characters (not so much some of the acting) and the special effects
keep getting better and better. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I love the harry potter series and i don't even like to read! I tried to red the lord of the rings
series: The hobbit was mildly interesting but i gave up part-way through "fellowship of the ring".
It was horrible. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Definitely! Harry Potter has taken over this world! J.K. Rowling is richer than the queen!! Lord of
the Rings is overall great, but I find Harry Potter's whimsical characters to be much more
interesting and captivating. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Harry Potter seems more complicated... But Lord oF The Rings is equally as complicated!! (books i
mean) MOVIE wise Harry Potter seems more casual!!! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ok, i tried reading the lord of the rings books, and couldn't get past the first few chapters. It
was so boring!!!
I'm only on the 1st harry potter book, but it is the bomb!!! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, Harry Potter books do get slow, but not like Lord of the Rings. (Not that I dislike Lord of the
Rings, I just like Harry better) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I harry potter is more realistic |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree with this one. When I picked up the first Harry Potter book, I couldn't put it down and I
follwed the series right through to the end. When I picked up the first Lord of the Rings book, I
never got round to finishing it as I just found it too difficult to concentrate on pages of
descriptions.
Don't get me wrong, I thought the Lord of the Rings films were fantastic, but the books drag on a
little too much. I was never bored with the Harry Potter books and I always wanted to keep reading.
I love the films too. I hope that JK Rowling decides to write another book, perhaps this time
focusing on the adventures of Harry's children! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Of course he is look at the sales records plus I LOVE HARRY!!! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If i had to choose, Potter, but that's only if i "had" too lol.
I saw the LOTR films, and was bored the entire time, (really - after the first 4hour installment
they walk over a hill - WTF?)
Potter i find more engaging, just I find it a little bit.... Erm.... Irritating after a while,
points this, bludger that....... The last book was the best when they were out of the school. I just
think JK needs to write something else. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think I'm going to have to go with Harry Potter. It's not that some of the LOTR books weren't
good, but there are plenty set in Middle Earth that were complete crap as well and that brings down
the overall score. Further, I really hate epic fantasy, which makes Harry Potter even better. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Love harry potter |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Lord of the Rings has had much more effort put into it, and has lasted for fifty years.
Also, it seems JK Rowling has copied several of Tolkien's characters and ideas:
1. Aragog the spider = Shelob the spider
2. Dumbledore = Gandalf
3. WORMtail = WORMtongue
4. Giants and Trolls in both series
Lord of the Rings is more gripping and exciting, and less predictable, until you have seen all the
films for the umpteenth time and know the whole story in detail. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You limeys with your wizards and elves, it’s all just a bunch of make believe innit.
Seriously though I think that while the Rowling books are a lot of fun and nicely written there is
an epic quality to Tolkien’s work that elevates it to a different level. Plus you have to give
Tolkien credit for sheer scope and more or less creating the whole genre. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm sorry but no, the size of the back story the intricate details not to mention all of the history
and family trees Tolkien drew for each Hobbit. Yes many would argue it was just a long walk, but it
is timeless, anyone can enjoy it. On the other hand it also depend on the age of the reader, I feel
an older reader would prefer LOTR to the Harry Potter series, purely because of the darker qualities
of LOTR, which is not seen in Harry Potter especially in the earlier books. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Harry Potter is a very god series, and enjoyable to read. But it leaves many loop-holes throughout
the book.
The Lord of the Rings author invented his own language for the books. He put much more effort and
love into his books than J.K.R., and LOTR is a timeless classic. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I have read both books, seen every single movie of LOTR and Harry Potter.
My friends step dad is the director of the Harry Potter films (and I have met him...was star
struck!) And I've met Daniel Radcliffe!
Anyways, I think the Harry Potter books are better than the movies. I've been reading them inside
out since I was 7, and the movies skip some really vital things out!
LOTR movies are amazing. Some scenes too get tiresome but generally I can keep on watching and find
different things I haven't noticed before.
Soooo to cap it all off.
I prefer LOTR...generally.
I mean Harry Potter isn't far behind. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord of the rings is far better the storylines are far more complex and events less predictable... I
have to admit though the latest HP books have been better than the first couple |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I disagree. The two of them discuss completely different issues. Harry Potter is the process of
maturity of an individual, and The Lord of the Rings is the detailed description of a fantasy
world's historical event. Also, the characters in The Lord of the Rings are much maturer and even
more deeper than the characters of Harry Potter, although they were quite brilliantly constructed in
the seventh book. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Harry Potter is a series of movie where there are separate stories in each and every film. Lord of
The Rings is a single story movie in which the story is divided into three parts which are shown in
the two sequels of the first movie. Harry Potter is a movie based on magic and magicians of a
different world. Lord of The Rings is a story of a kingdom and its enemies. Though Harry Potter was
mainly based on children and kids really liked it but from a very critical point of view Lord of The
Rings was much a better movie. The way the story has been narrated and portrayed in three separate
movies was just perfect. Maintaining the continuity between the three films so that viewers may not
face any difficulty in understanding the film in any way was a great point to mention. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The harry potter books were only good for one thing - and that's getting more kids to have an
interest in reading. Fair enough, they are a good read for a child, but to compare it to lord of the
rings is like comparing the hokey cokey to Beethovens 5th symphony. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Personally I hate both, but more so with Harry Potter. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord of the rings rule how could you betray frodo |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
In lord of the rings you get excited and that kind of stuff. I just don't like harry potter. That's
just my opinion so don't make it personal (laci) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I love Harry Potter too. But if we're just talking about overall "greatness", I disagree. Harry
Potter had great potential I think. But, in the final book JK Rowling didn't develop the Snape
plotline as well as she might have. Yes, he was good because he loved Lily. But you can't compare
Snape's Tragedy to Gollum's Tragedy there is an order of magnitude of difference. Great question
though! |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
03 Mar 2008 00:56
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
