Poll: Whats better; Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter?

similar.squirrel

New member
Mar 28, 2009
6,021
0
0
I don't know. I'd like to say LOTR, because it's obviously more 'intelligent', being a classic and so forth. But I never got hooked on Tolkien the way that Rowling caught me. That's got to count for something, right?
Maybe it was because I read the bulk of them when I was about 12. LOTR often seems like a genealogical guide with some story tacked on.
 

Eldritch Warlord

New member
Jun 6, 2008
2,901
0
0
Macgyvercas said:
Eldritch Warlord said:
Macgyvercas said:
Also, the number of movies doesn't make that much difference. Believe it or not, Harry Potter beat James Bond at the box office and there are 22 Bond movies.
Part of that has to do with inflation. Of all three film franchises (Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, and James Bond) HP has the largest inflation advantage. If you feel like determining which is best quantitatively that is ;)
I believe the numbers were adjusted for inflation. The best highest grossing in North America list ws not though. This was worldwide.
On Wikipedia? The world-wide list is not inflation adjusted while the "US and Canada" list is.
 

Bloodstain

New member
Jun 20, 2009
1,625
0
0
Mr Cwtchy said:
Bloodstain said:
I read both The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion and all Harry Potter novels.

I agree that TLotR is way better. I just admire the universe Tolkien created.
Everyone, read the Silmarillion! Although it's very slow-paced and difficult to read, it's pure beauty.
You should try reading The Children of Húrin since you've done pretty much the rest of the mythos.

Just don't do it if you're feeling sad. Because this book is no pick-me-up.
I always wanted to, but keep forgetting. Thanks for reminding me. I will read it as soon as I can.

GameGoddess101 said:
Bloodstain said:
Everyone, read the Silmarillion! Although it's very slow-paced and difficult to read, it's pure beauty.
I agree. I read the LoTR books BEFORE the Silmarillion and, even though the first chapters are Biblical and tricky, all after that feels like other LoTR books. The Hobbit is a pretty good starter in the Tolkienverse.
Best order:
The Hobbit -> The Lord of the Rings - The Silmarillion -> The Lord of the Rings AGAIN
 

Summerstorm

Elite Member
Sep 19, 2008
1,480
125
68
Hm... i haven't read any Harry Potter. But i can just say: LotR is damn boring. Don't get me wrong: It sets the world up, inspired thousands different fantasy writers and has a really nice plot and characters. But just the writing itself... ugh.

If we go to the movies: LotR pretty much eats HP alive there.
 

Burningsok

New member
Jul 23, 2009
1,504
0
0
JJR Tolkien was one craaazy guy, but my god was he an amazing writer. Hell he created the Elven language.
 

MimsySnark

Cat's Meow
Jan 18, 2010
122
0
0
Really? As soon as I saw the title, I just couldn't believe someone would have the temerity to ask such a question. Look, I love Harry Potter but as a work of literature it barely deserves to be uttered in the same breath as Lord of the Rings. I never resort to reductionist arguments...until now--anyone who thinks Harry Potter is better understands nothing meaningful about literature.

On a side note: I had a similar encounter with a friend in college right before the first Lord of the Rings movie came out, where she turned to me and innocently asked: "Lord of the Rings--that's like Harry Potter, right?" I was stunned by the question!

Edit: AFTER posting, I decided to read some of the other comments and, well, I had to stop. I'm not being an overly dramatic nerd, here, in saying that I am genuinely saddened that some of you people just don't understand Lord of the Rings. But, it's obvious that those who think Harry Potter's better grew up reading it, and are still attached to nostalgic feelings for it.
 

Epicator

New member
Oct 12, 2009
11
0
0
neither, harry potter was just too childish and it didn't suck me in. Lord of the Rings was too boring and long and the only thing i found compelling throughout the entire storyline was watching the two lead hobbit's homosexual desires grow for one another.

i guess harry potter was better overall because it actually has a character in the movies i want to smash with Hermione while there is abso-fucking-lutely no good tail in the entire lord of the rings series. if i gotta sit through these movies with the woman-friend they i want to at least see some women.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Macgyvercas said:
spartan231490 said:
Macgyvercas said:
If you go by the box office, Harry Potter (Harry Potter is the highest grossing film series worldwide as of June 2010. Lord of the Rings is 4th).

My personal opinion? Lord of the Rings. Sauron > Voldemort
The hp series did better because it has more movies. there arent any other 8 movie series out that i can think of. but how is this even a fucking contest, hp is slightly childish, and has a number of plot holes, small ones i admit, and LOTR defined the f-ing genre. his world was incredibly complex, there is a reason that almost every fantasy series in the world has similarities to LOTR and why elves shoot bows and commune with trees, and dwarfs have braided beards and use battle axes. without tolkein elves would be equely qualified to sell cookies and dwarves would be hired by lucas films.
cookie for the reference?
I do prefer Lord of the Rings over Harry Potter.

I just feel the need to drag numbers into everything.

Also, the number of movies doesn't make that much difference. Believe it or not, Harry Potter beat James Bond at the box office and there are 22 Bond movies.
Oh yeah, how could the number of movies affect anything? It's not like a second movie doubles the earnings from a stable fanbase or anything. as for the james bond thing, many of those movies earned significantly less cuz they were 20 years ago, you'd have to adjust for inflation.
 

MimsySnark

Cat's Meow
Jan 18, 2010
122
0
0
Zarokima said:
Thankfully you specified novels. I'm sorry to the Potter fans, but honestly I think it's an insult to Tolkien to compare him to Rowling. The man was a literary genius. Rowling's work is nice, but this is like comparing Rent to Hamlet.

For the movies I do prefer Potter, though.

Also in terms of legacy, damn near the entirety of modern fantasy has roots in Tolkein's work. No comparison whatsoever (though to be fair, HP is much newer).
Finally, a sane person!
 

Phoenix09215

New member
Dec 24, 2008
714
0
0
JaredXE said:
Well, I actually can read through Harry Potter....
Tolkien bores me. Too many pages devoted to scenery, slow-assed pacing.

If we are talking movies though, LoTR wins hands down. I can't stand the Harry Potter movies. I feel that I need to have the book in front of me to fill in all the plot-holes.
I kinda have to agree with you... Tolkien is a GREAT author and I think its partly because of the way he wrote the book, that the films were able to be so successful! But personally I found the Lord of the Rigns to drag on a little. Although, The Hobbit is in fact my favourite book!

However, The Harry Potter books are still very creative and a lot easier to read but remain to be interesting whether your an adult or a child... So I am really not sure which is better but for me I think its gonna be Harry Potter :S
Although if I read the Lord of The Rigns books again now I am older maybe I might change my mind?
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
Actual said:
_____ ______ is to Lord of the Rings,

as Twilight is to Bram Stoker's Dracula.
I think this is a bit of a leap. Harry Potter has his head stuck so far up the ass of Wandlore that they completely skip hand magic but they didn't bastardize what it is to be a wizard/witch. They also skip blood magic too but still >.>

I voted Harry Potter because it was easier to read and, had more going for it. It took me three attempts to get through Two Towers and really, I think Hobbit was better than the LotR trilogy. It all started with Bilbo after all. The LotR movies brought the sense of scale to it that I couldn't glean from the books which is something but it was still a task getting through those movies. Still haven't even watched Return of the King yet with no plans to fix that.
 

MimsySnark

Cat's Meow
Jan 18, 2010
122
0
0
krashash said:
"Lord of the Rings was instrumental in creation of the modern fantasy genre, but I couldn't get through the books. I think it was in Return of the King, when I realized that I needed to know all of the history for about 60 characters and an entire fantasy world, that I stopped.
Um, no, you don't. I initially read "The Hobbit", following by the Lord of the Rings, and I never felt I was missing anything by not knowing all the mythology of the world--Isildur, Elendil, what have you?--not necessary, may enhance the depth of one's enjoyment, but I've still never finished the Silmarillion or any of the other histories. I still enjoy re-reading Lord of the Rings, though. It can be engaged with on multiple levels, but high-mindedness is not a prerequisite.
 

Kazyan

New member
Oct 24, 2009
19
0
0
There's no objective "better", despite what you'll hear from music fans.

LotR, while I've never read it, has pretty comprehensively established itself as a deep, staggeringly well-written epic that invented modern fantasy. That's incredible. Its drawback is that it's damn near impenetrable and moves like a snail. If you're intelligent and have a long attention span--which doesn't make you better than people lacking those traits, by the way--it's a better read for you.

HP is more modern, but eventually both series will be outdated, so let's ignore that part. The writing isn't as good, but the HP universe is comprehensive, doesn't require a college course to understand, and knows exactly what it is: a festival of tropes. It keeps you reading, and even though the books are doorstoppers, stuff's happening and it moves like a piece of potassium rocketing across a pond, complete with sparks and I forget where this simile is going. If you're less of an intellectual and want an easier read, HP > LotR.

It comes down to what you want in a book, honestly. They're both extremely popular and have left their marks on the world of literature.