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.
Topic: Harry Potter Vs Lord of the Rings - page 4. (Read 6085 times)
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.
Harry Potter..
LOTR is..
I don't know, HP is just better
Well said.. i guess LOTR is..
I don't know, HP is just better
LOTR, but the Harry Potter films are fine for a winter evening with family and friends.
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.
LOTR much better, more action. 
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.
Neither both are flimsy series of films
I like Lord of Rings.
Not sure why, but I felt Harry Potter was boring.
Anybody have similar thoughts?
Not sure why, but I felt Harry Potter was boring.
Anybody have similar thoughts?
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....
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....
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....
1 vote for Lord of the Rings please.
Lord of the Rings is kinda like Harry Potter (only for grownups) ;-)
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...
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.
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
1 vote for Lord of the Rings please.
Lord of the Rings is kinda like Harry Potter (only for grownups) ;-)
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...
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.
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
1 vote for Lord of the Rings please.
Lord of the Rings is kinda like Harry Potter (only for grownups) ;-)
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, the character developpment in the movie is quite bad when compared to the books.
And FYI, Gandalf could not call his eagle friends because the flying nazguls would have easily chopped them as soon as they would have entered Sauron's land
1 vote for Lord of the Rings please.
Lord of the Rings is kinda like Harry Potter (only for grownups) ;-)
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...
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.
1 vote for Lord of the Rings please.
Lord of the Rings is kinda like Harry Potter (only for grownups) ;-)
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...
They were Better compared to LOTR : Disagree
Harry Potter has interesting Villians: Agree
HP has Interesting Villians compared to LOTR : Disagree
Although harry potter is very nice, LOTR is much better IMO. Actually I don't see that much in common between them, anyway.
Hands Down Lord of the Rings! 
It is such an epic both in books and in movies.
It is such an epic both in books and in movies.
Jump to: