Harry Potter and Lord Of The Rings

As far as visuals go, Lord Of The Rings is better.
As far as the stories go, Harry Potter is better.
The Harry Potter books are better.

Lord Of The Rings, has the old stereotype attitude, "White is pure." A white wizard on a white horse.

Most of the cloak in Hogwarts is black. The sorting hat is a black hat.
So much for the, badguys wear the black hats rule.

I disagree with that so very, very strongly.


But that's just me.


I havn't seen The Two Towers yet, however.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

The LOTR movies are better than the Harry Potter movies in every way because Peter Jackson is a better director than Chris Columbus, but the Harry Potter books are far superior to the LOTR books because JK Rowling is a better writer than JRR Tolkien.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

Monkey, you are sooooo high! Rowling is from a different generation of writers, and shouldn't even be compared to Tolkein! There is no way that she's better, uh-uh, nope, sorry...

But then again, you're entitled to your opinion. It would be so much nicer though if you kept it to yourself.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Keep my opinion to myself? Why, That's UN-AMERICAN! And I am NOT high, I'm drunk!

Tolkein wrote literature.

Rowling writes pulp fiction.

It is insulting to even compare the two. Tolkein was a linguist and many people do not have the intelligence to read his work simply because it is such a high reading level. Being easier to read does not make something better.

Thats just ignorance. In Tolkein's world color was used to denote the power of wizards. For instance in the book there is a brown wizard who is not so powerful. After his fight with the Balrog Gandalf becomes the most powerful wizard, so he becomes white, and you'll notice Saruman looks a little more drab.

If you think white means pure obviously you missed out on the whole first book/movie when Saruman is white.

As for the movies. LOTR is an epic that will be remembered and watched for decades. Harry Potter is already starting to fade. I made a prediction in these message boards that Harry Potter movies would make less with each release until the last one goes straight to video if it is even made. So far that prediction is holding true.

Fine, Tolkien is more respected in literary circles, but I, personally, enjoy reading Harry Potter books more than I did the LOTR books. I found LOTR the books to be long winded and dull, with little regard for emotional subtext or character development, whereas JK Rowling goes into depth creating 3 dimensional characters, and keeps the stories moving at a decent pace. Sheesh. Remind me never to speak my mind again! The frickin Hobbit Mafia's gonna leave a troll head in my bed or something!

P.S. I took, and PASSED, the SATs when I was in the sixth grade, so don't say that I'm not smart enough to "understand" JRR Tolkien. I just find him BORING.

Not only is that point moot, but SATs in and of themselves barely do any form of literary comprehension. I don't see what you doing in sixth grade on SATs has to do with anything at hand.

I personally don't see how you can find Tolkien boring, but I can't bother arguing this.



To compare them is like comparing Bob Dylan to Tom Petty.


Have you ever taken a second and looked at the WORLD Tolkien created?



Have you ever thought about where most all of our modern fantasy ideals have come from?

It’s all a matter of taste. In-depth hard-core fantasy is my favorite genre, but I’ve always liked reading Sydney Sheldon as well. I have never had any real desire to read Rowling’s books, though I have heard they are a fantastic read. Tolkein on the other hand, has captivated me many times now, and I will never tire of re-reading the trilogy, The Hobbit, and The Silmerillion. I do, whole heartedly agree, that comparing the two is moot, they are worlds apart. It took me three attempts to read The Fellowship of the Ring, because the party sequence is very boring to me. Yet when I got beyond that, I couldn’t put the books down.

Both writers have created worlds that have a deep history and very well thought out characters. Monkey, by you saying that Tolkein didn’t have any character development, is in my opinion, absurd. Tolkein’s characters are very deep and go through much growth during their sojourns. I will not argue with you however, because your and my taste seem to be quite different. It would be like me calling you a fool because you prefer apples to oranges. But please don’t be so critical of the Father of Fantasy, he paved the way for all our modern fantasy writers, including Rowling.

The world of Harry Potter doesn't hold a stone to the world of Middle Earth. I hate to be blunt here, but I find some of the things said just plain idiotic.


And a quick thought, I didn't realize the SATs were on a pass/fail basis.

I don't believe I've said anything idiotic. I was being respectful of someone elses opinion. I agree that Rowling's "world" doesn't hold a candle to middle-earth, but I'm not going to say that her work is garbage comparitivly. Because they are not comparable! Please try to be a little more tolerant and a little less rude, you dickwad! DAMN, practice what you preach Brian!

I didn't mean you at all. Not in the slightest bit.


I'm not saying J.K. Rowlings world is garbage either, but as we both said, it doesn't hold a candle to Tolkien.



I get misinterpreted a lot on this forum. I have to be a little less sarcastic I think.

In case you've forgotten, there's another white wizard who just happens to be as evil as all get-out. But whatever.


I strongly disagree. I find both quite impressive.


Well, it rather depends on what measure you're using, I'd think. If someone wrote a book that you had to be, say, a biologist to read, you could hardly blame someone for disliking it for being difficult to read.

Tolkien's philology is both a virtue and a flaw in this context. There is no right answer. Just as being easier to read does not make something more better, something being written at a lower reading level does not make something necessarily worse, either.


Regardless, the Potter films, if they keep up anywhere NEAR this pace for seven straight flicks, will be remembered as a franchise to rival that of James Bond. They're apples and oranges, anyway. Rowling's a very fine writer who hasn't, I don't think, even attempted to REALLY flex her muscles yet.

I think it is Harry Potter's newness that works against his story in conservative and fundamentalist circles. The Lord of the Rings has been around for half a century and has had time to become a "classic." Harry Potter is new.........a fad, perhaps. This is yet to be seen......................

But in the end.......the bottom line is......................When J.R.R. Tolkien wrote about other races and other faiths etc.......he demonstrated a vestige of respect, and sometimes even love, for them..............With regard to Lord of the Rings versus Harry Potter...........Tolkien would have graciously supported J.K. Rowling works even if he despised them........it was not in his character to class any other authors works as inferior to his......

Hmmmmmmm........now the movies...........well I liked them both........

__________________
~ Nikki ~

"I'm your hell, I'm your dream.......I'm nothing in between.......You know you wouldn't want it any other way".........

"Listen, when I slap you, you'll take it and like it"..........Humphrey Bogart..........Maltese Falcon.......

Graze on my lips and if those hills be dry, stray lower, where the pleasant fountains lie...........William Shakespeare.......

Since when can you "pass" the SATs? They're also not that hard and do not require a very high reading level. But if you want to compare standardized test scores I got a 32 on the ACT (roughly the equivalent of 1 wrong in each of the 4 sections), which is what we take in Michigan, and when I took the PSAT (test for the National Merit Scholarship) I scored in the 99.5 percentile for the entire nation. The means that only one half of one percent of all the people to took the test did better than me.

I have no idea how old you are now, so I don't know when you tried to read Tolkein - but I tried for the first time when I was 11 and I found it too difficult. Maybe try in a couple of years and you might be able to hanlde it.

Being Pulp Fiction doesn't make something bad. James Bond is pulp fiction and most people find those movies entertaining. Most fiction is in fact pulp fiction.

Rowling writes a children's book (I know some adults like it too) about a boy wizard who has various episodic adventures at a wizard's school.

Tolkein wrote a grand epic about a world's struggle for survival in the midst of war. He drew from many of his own war time experiences and his hatred of the industrialization of his home town and wove all of that into his book. He was a linguist and made up an entire language for the Elves. His books are like a history or a mythology, he invented a world, populated it, and gave it a history. He work fathered all modern day fantasy, from Harry Potter to The Wheel of Time to DragonLance to Magic the Gathering. Insinuating the JK Rowling is a better writer is just ignorant.

There is nothing wrong with pulp fiction, I'm reading pulp fiction right now. Its just not literature, and it doesn't get remembered. The budget for Harry Potter movies will keep increasing, and the gross will keep decreasing. Right now I doubt they'll make a movie for book 4 definitely not 5.

__________________
Chris Beasley
CB Swords - Get LOTR replica swords.
Coupon Codes - Get deals on Amazon, Dell, Gateway, and more.

Tolkein is what Rowling can or will never be. Harry Potter is no better or interesting than a stone wall.

Tolkien cant be compared to any other writer throughout history, for he was far superior to ALL!(film) The Lord Of The Rings- Fellowship of the ring was so well done i thought TTT could not possible be any better, was i ever wrong. TTT came out December 18th. Today is the 22nd and I have already seen it 6 times , and am short 54 bucks but is it worth it? yes. Now how many people could say ive seen harry potter 6 times and 4 days and it only gets better? hah. not many. TTT on the other hand had to have been written and dircted by genoiuses to do so.
As far as stories go? Harry potter comes no where near to the lord of the rings. LOTR is a universal work, it has many cultures, races and belifs. hp on the other hand, (i have read,seen the first film) I didnt notice anyone of visible minority, did you?!
ahhh , well now that thats all out i have to say TTT so amazing, going to see it again today and whoever hasnt seen it.. SEE IT

Okay, I get it. I'm ignorant. Well F*ck you, and F*ck JRR Tolkien. Okay, you can't PASS the SAT's, that was poor wording, but do I really need to be beaten down with rudely worded posts about how I'm a f*cking idiot for having a dissenting opinion? Ever heard of civility? No, you haven't obviously. I am beyond p*ssed at all of this. Okay, I'm too f*cking stupid to understand JRR Tolkien, you happy now you little F*cks?!? I'm sorry I ever DARED state my OPINION. and in parting: F*ck you.

Hey Mr. Monk. I really think you need to be a bit more expressive with your posts. I'm not sure what point your trying to make here. Don't let it get to you so much man, it's no big deal, because they're proving their ignorance by assuming only their opinions are the correct ones. I may not agree with you on who made greater works of fiction, but it doesn't really matter, does it? I know what I enjoy the most, as do you. Cheers mate.

LordSlaytan, You were very cool about disagreeing with me. I actually respect you and your opinions. The rest of these guys are rude and assume that I did not understand Tolkien or that I read it when I was 11 and didn't get it. I read it when i was 26, I understood it just fine, but I just wouldn't call Tolkien one of my favorites...(Truth be told, I enjoy James Ellroy over both Tolkien and Rowling, but that's neither here nor there...) I was definitely not going off on you.

Nah, I've been giving everybody my passive/aggressive attitude, I think you're all full of crap!