The Lord of the Rings vs. Harry Potter (probably will be spoilers)

[Jarlaxle]

Okay so I looked through the search engine and couldn't find any threads like this, lock and delete if I'm wrong though.

But if that doesn't happen then what is DTF's views on these two great fantasy franchises? Personally, the Harry Potter novels provided me with greater enjoyment than the Lord of the Rings' did, although I enjoy both series' immensely. The Harry Potter Novels have so many twists and turns, and I love how things that seemed insignificant in earlier novels turned out to factor in in the sixth and seventh novels. While Rowling's writing abilities are far inferior to those that Tolkien had, the Lord of the Rings is sometimes a tough read, and I can definitely understand how some people are unable to get into these books because there is a certain lack of action! In short, Harry Potter is a page turner while the Lord of the Rings is simply a great idea within a great world and a fantastic peice of literature, it's just not for everyone.

But then there are the movies. In my opinion, the Lord of the Rings movies are by FAR a better remake of their respective novels than the Harry Potter movies are. While the Harry Potter movies provide a little bit of fun and humour to the action, the action itself in these movies seems downplayed, and is in the case with the the Deathly Hallows Part 2, can be downright abated by pointless humour. But the Lord of the Rings turns the novels into action packed movies that keep me on the edge of my seat from opening to ending credits and make me want to go back and watch over and over again, which I have certainly done. All in all, both sets of movies are great to me, but the Harry Potter movies seem a little childish to me while the Lord of the Rings is just epic and perfect and everything. Although it was sad watching the last Harry Potter movie knowing that it was pretty much officially the end of my childhood.

Anyways

tl;dr.....which sets of novels and movies do you prefer.

Discuss and appreciate these two great works of art!

[Ħ]

...Is there really any question which of the two is better?

[Implode]

tl;dr.....which sets of novels and movies do you prefer.

I pretty much exactly agree with you.

[Jarlaxle]

...Is there really any question which of the two is better?

Preferences vary, thats what makes us individuals.

[ClairvoyantCat]

As far as books are concerned, I'll take Harry Potter.  Even though Rowling sort of went downhill towards the end and really screwed the pooch with the epilogue, the books have a lot more character to them in general than The Lord of the Rings.  I think you nailed it with LotR being a "great idea within a great world," there's no way I'm going to challenge that, but the overall writing style and narrative can become really mundane and make the books often uninteresting and occasionally soporific.  It suffers greatly from this and makes the series almost a chore to get through.  It's a pretty major gripe that I have with the series, but it's not severe enough to make me dislike them strongly.  I just don't care for them particularly.

As far as movies, I don't pay much close attention to either, but I've seen all of them for both parties and I'd go with The Lord of the Rings, simply because Harry Potter is too inconsistent.  I do like The Prizoner of Azkaban more than any Lord of the Rings movie I can think of. 

These books were the two literary essentials to me growing up so I'm sorry to go on a rant. 

tl;dr:  Books = Harry Potter
         Movies - Lord of the Rings

[GuineaPig]

Neither authors are particularly good writers, but both are very enjoyable.  I'm not quite sure what to pick.

[Jarlaxle]

I've always thought that if the LotR films were made first as they are now and then somebody wrote the books according to those movies they would be amazing, mostly because of a large influx of action scenes. But they are great as they are now, but as you said, can be mundane and a bit of a chore.

EDIT:

Neither authors are particularly good writers, but both are very enjoyable.  I'm not quite sure what to pick.

wut?

[glaurung]

The Lord of the Rings wins hands down for me. My favorite books and some of my very favorite movies.

[Sigz]

The LOTR books are boring as fuck, the Harry Potter books are fantastic.

The LOTR movies are awesome, the Harry Potter movies are a mixed bag though none of them stack up against any of the LOTR movies.

[Chino]

Neither series did anything for me. I read the first lotr as well as saw the first movie. I read the first four HPs and saw the first five movies, nothing special. Then again, I'm generally not a fan of fiction so my opinion isn't really valid.

[NecessaryPain]

LOTR.

How is this even a contest?

Tolkein invented modern-day fantasy. And his vision has yet to be surpassed.

Who cares how they both read. That's not the topic title. LOTR > Harry Potter. In every sense.

[TL]

The best one is where Marty goes back in time to 1955, and after accidentally altering history, has to make sure his parents get together.

[GuineaPig]

I want to create a thread comparing the merits of China Mieville and Patrick Rothfuss.

[glaurung]

LOTR.

How is this even a contest?

Tolkein invented modern-day fantasy. And his vision has yet to be surpassed.

Who cares how they both read. That's not the topic title. LOTR > Harry Potter. In every sense.

See, I can totally understand someone not liking Tolkien's style of writing. I just find myself being constantly fascinated by how much detail he put into the world and it just works for me.

[TL]

Then again, I'm generally not a fan of fiction

You mean fantasy, right? (In which case, same here).
Because you know that Avatar isn't a factual documentary... right?

[Sigz]

Who cares how they both read. That's not the topic title. LOTR > Harry Potter. In every sense.

Obviously it's not in every sense if one of them reads like a history book.

[ClairvoyantCat]

Who cares how they both read. That's not the topic title. LOTR > Harry Potter. In every sense.

Oh.  I didn't realize that how the novels read has nothing to do with which one is better.  Okay.

[Jarlaxle]

Who cares how they both read. That's not the topic title. LOTR > Harry Potter. In every sense.

Oh.  I didn't realize that how the novels read has nothing to do with which one is better.  Okay.

[Implode]

Ninja'd 3x. 

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Neither authors are particularly good writers, but both are very enjoyable.  I'm not quite sure what to pick.

You, sir, are wrong

[Cable]

Well, I am listening to the audiobooks currently for Harry Potter. I doubt I will get around to the LOTR material anytime, unless they have audiobooks (no real time to read fiction, just non-fiction). So I cannot comment on that angle.

Both are fantastic, and i believe LOTR is the best trilogy (yes, over Star Wars). The only complaint with HP is I expected the battle to be on a LOTR scale, lasting for an hour. But both accomplish similar and different things superbly. And as when ROTK ended, the same sadness occurs now with TDH:Pt.2 being released. I think my favorite movie going memories are those first two Xmas holidays with LOTR and HP 1& 2 being out at the same time.

[Jarlaxle]

The only complaint with HP is I expected the battle to be on a LOTR scale, lasting for an hour.

Exactly, the majority of the battle was fought off screen when it would have been a fantastic cinematic display.

[Heretic]

LOTR.

How is this even a contest?

Tolkein invented modern-day fantasy. And his vision has yet to be surpassed.

Who cares how they both read. That's not the topic title. LOTR > Harry Potter. In every sense.

[Mr. Beale]

They really are apples and oranges to me. LOTR story resonates more emotionally, not to mention has a more imaginative world in totality as a setting. Rowling's world is all about the little details that give it its charm, not to mention is much funnier. The characters and their interactions are more immediately identifiable. I love them both for what they are. You might as well compare LOTR and the Chronicles of Narnia or something. Both are good at what they do, they just have different aims.

...Although I guess you could say LOTR is better executed, as Rowling's writing chops were arguably didn't keep up with the more adult ambitions of the later books but I digress.

I think we can all agree that the LOTR films are far better films however.

[The King in Crimson]

LotR in both cases.

Harry Potter, while fun to read, never got my imagination spinning like reading LotR and the Silmarillion has. With Harry Potter I was content to finish the series and move on. With LotR I wanted to explore every nook and cranny in Middle Earth. I wanted to know what was going on in the Sea of Rhun or Far Harad. Yeah, Tolkien's characters are more mythic statements than fully fleshed out characters and Rowling did a much better job of making me feel for Harry and Co, but I was able to overlook that and focus on the history and grand scale of the writing.

[AcidLameLTE]

Lord of the Rings.

[Zantera]

When it comes to books I would say Harry Potter.
Those 7 books were pretty much all I read during my youth, or while growing up, and the writing-style and so just worked very well.
I can agree that towards the end some ideas felt very rushed, I think it felt obvious that some things in the last books were planned all since the beginning, meanwhile some were more ideas that had been forced into the book very late on.
I do have huge appreciation for Tolkien and the world he managed to create, but as a writer I simply can't dig him.
I tried getting through both The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, but the writing-style was just too hard, and it bored me.

In terms of movies, I would say Lord of the Rings, hands down.
All three movies were really epic, and in terms of replay-value, I'd say that LotR has a good chance, meanwhile the HP-movies feel more like "I've seen them once already, cba again".

[ACID_FOX]

The Lord of the Rings is the best film series since the original Star Wars. Harry Potter...isn't.

I read up until The Goblet of Fire. Enjoyed it then, but that was when I was about 12, my appreciation of good literature wasn't exactly honed.

Reading the Fellowship now. I agree with people saying it's long winded and boring at points, but I'm still enjoying it.

[NecessaryPain]

Who cares how they both read. That's not the topic title. LOTR > Harry Potter. In every sense.

Oh.  I didn't realize that how the novels read has nothing to do with which one is better.  Okay.

There is far more to this debate than how the words on a page ebb and flow.

Yes, they are both novels, and therefore must be read. But above all, there is a vision that goes beyond all else. One of those novels has a vision that simply invented a genre. The other, is a mass-market novel/s aimed at young people. That too, has merit. They are good books. But Tolkein is something more. He just isn't for everyone.

Let's be real here, the guy created his own form of language!

'Which book reads better?' would be the point you and many more are trying to make. And I agree, that would sway a lot of minds. But i'd still go as far to say that Harry Potter is 'easier' to read. And that's about it.

[Sigz]

But above all, there is a vision that goes beyond all else.

I really don't think it does actually. Every author who's ever written anything they were serious about has had a vision for their book. Some of those may have been brilliant and unique visions, but if the author can't convey them properly then they aren't doing their job. A great idea is one thing, great execution is an entirely other thing, and frankly LOTR fails at the latter.

[GuineaPig]

Besides, I don't think one should award points based simply on how dense the mythology is.  Yeah, Tolkien went into the background of his world and its history.  Yeah, he made up a bunch of runes and the rudiments of some languages.   That's impressive.

But fantasy authors have come a long way in creating better textured, more nuanced, and interesting worlds since then.

[ACID_FOX]

True, but the man almost single handedly created the modern high fantasy genre. The cliche image of elves as tall, fair and skilled with bows, dwarfs as greedy miners, orcs, trolls, etc. Before Tolkien they were all "fairytale" creatures, if that makes any sense.

[Ħ]

True, but the man almost single handedly created the modern high fantasy genre. The cliche image of elves as tall, fair and skilled with bows, dwarfs as greedy miners, orcs, trolls, etc. Before Tolkien they were all "fairytale" creatures, if that makes any sense.

That's the equivalent of saying, "The Beatles were the greatest rock band because they invented the genre."  I don't buy that logic.  Tolkein invented it, sure, but others perfected it and produce things that are even better.

[jonny108]

Books: Harry Potter
Film: The Lord of the Rings

I do love both series of books, Harry Potter for the most part stays interesting and doesn't drag out 3 page details about a walking tree.  That is really the only problem with TLOTR books.  He's explains everything far too much where it starts getting downright boring and a struggle to read.  It is such a great story though!  I do enjoy reading stories that do go into a lot of depth like The Culture novels by Iain Banks, but I just don't think Tolkien kept it interesting while doing so.  I do love the books though.

The films on the other hand are probably the best 3 films I've ever watched.

[Kosmo]

Lord of the Rings.

This. A.k.a the right answer.