Ok, there's the LOTR trilogy and twilight saga, but when you think about it, harry potter is an empire. It has a them park (LOTR doesn't) so many many fans, magic and lots more. It has deeper moral complexity such as snape who goes good and LOTR only has gollum. There are more influential female characters, better plot, no offence, better villain, although sauron is pretty color. In half blood prince we learn so much about voldemorts past and the secret to his power. LOTR doesn't go into that much detail about sauron a past. JK Rowling is the only person to become a billionaire by writing books, and while Tolkien may be a great writer, he's nothing compared to Queen Rowling. Gandalf is cool and stuff, but dumbledore is the ONLY ONE HE EVER FEARED, so clearly, dumbledore is more powerful by pure magic standards. Dumbledore is old and doesn't get into battle like gandalf, but dumbledore sacrificed himself. Dumbledore told someone to kill him so that he could have a spy. That's brave. Dumbledore doesn't need a wand to do magic, neither does voldemort, it has more death, which is realistic and happens in real life. The part that annoys me is that gandalf comes back to life. He died fair and square and then he just comes back to life. What a cheater. So clearly, rowling has twice the balls of Tolkien. LOTR sucks so much and I wish it was dead. Death before LOTR. Harry potter forever. WEASLEY IS OUR KING
Many LoTR fans argue that the films are much better, and the visual effects are better too. However, while this may be true to a certain extent, movies are not everything to a series. What about the books, which first started the movies in the first place? Many say that the Harry Potter books are a rip-off from LoTR, and have many similarities. However, JK Rowling had much symbolism on many names, so if the names seem similar, it could have been a coincidence. Furthermore, don't many say Percy Jackson and Harry Potter books are much alike as well? Fantasy books do tend to overlap a little, though I do admire Tolkien for introducing the fantasy genre. JK Rowling also took many years planning the HP series, and there are many parallel events (if you have ever heard of ring composition) and symbolism. (not just from the names of characters) Besides, I do think that Harry Potter can connect more with it's readers emotionally. Although you may say that Tolkien had much more backstories to LoTR, JK Rowling also had many, and even more uploaded on Pottermore! Though some might complain that Harry Potter was bratty and whiny, he went through a lot. He was bullied from young, and did not get a chance to enjoy his childhood, despite being away from the Wizarding World. He had no friends, no family whatsoever. Even after going to Hogwarts, despite being known as "popular", year after year he was ostracized by his so called "friends", and even members of his house. Sometimes, even his best mate Ron Weasley did not believe him and refused to talk to him for days! His teacher (Snape) also seemed to despise him, mocking his dead father, and even the seemingly caring and loving mentor Dumbledore had kept many secrets from him, and was seemed like he was"raising a pig for slaughter" (quoted from Snape) He also went through many deaths--his only family left, his godfather (which he only experienced for about a year, even then they could not have much chance to interact) , his mentor, his friends etc. Hence, his whining made him more realistic, and as he grew older he also matured. (good character development) Manny other characters also are interesting and have depth to them (Snape, Dumbledore, Tom Riddle (Voldemort etc)
This is why I think HP is better than LoTR. Thanks for reading!
Due to the fact that "Harry Potter" is loved by so many, I feel that it is better than "Lord of the Rings". One hears far more about "Harry Potter" than "Lord of the Rings". "Lord of the Rings" had it's time however, "Harry Potter" seems to continue to interest many.
I think its clear who's the winner. Harry Potter shines brighter. The one thing that makes it clear is the fan base. Look at websites like 'Pottermore' and 'Hexrpg'. There are plenty more HP websites, it even has an article on the wiki about all of them(and it is quite lengthy). Check out the theme park, and the marketing business. While its true that Lord of the Ring movies have won 17 oscars, I think there is more to a series than movies. Personally, I thin the Harry Potter movies were less awesome than the books, but good anyway. Anyhoo, there are tons of Harry Potter fans on the globe. I saw a car that had its licence plate 'MCFMNGD' (If you're a Harry Potter fan you'll get that). There are Harry Potter dolls, wallpaper, bed sheets, posters and many more. J.K.Rowling is the first person to become a millionaire for her writing. Point still proved? If no, then comment me a reason why you think Harry Potter is not better than LOTR. I bet I can counterargue that.
Let's stop for a second and the think about the females in both of these stories. For Harry Potter we have Hermione Granger, Ginny Weasley, Luna Lovegood, Molly Weasley, Lily Potter, Bellatrix Lestrange, and Professor McGonagall, all of which are completely kick-butt characters. The Lord of the Rings on the other hand, I think has one female elf that is significant to the story. All of the HP females teach us different and valuable lessons.
Hermione - being smart is a good thing
Ginny - bold is beautiful
Luna - dare to be different
Molly and Lily - a mother's love is the most important
Bellatrix - hatred and evil turn the most beautiful people rotten
McGonagall - you can be pretty awesome while being strict (even at an older age)
Even if these females were not in the story, the male characters still teach very excellent lessons as well. I believe the only female role in Lord of the Rings is as a love interest, something most of the females don't provode until later on in the series when their characters are more developed.
As we can see, female empowerment is incredibly different between these two stories. As far as young children, I would want them to read Harry Potter so they can learn things about being a teenager before the time comes and they can learn to embrace themselves, not just be one this Earth for men to fall in love with. Harry Potter inspires women (including me) to achieve something higher in life and try to change the world, Lord of the Rings, clearly, cannot do this even if they were able to reawaken J.R.R. Tolkien from the dead.
First of all I don't know if This is even an argument Harry Potter has a theme park in UNIVERSAL for goodness sake. Harry Potter also has a booming website and has huge amounts of fan fiction. But truthfully Harry Potter has a stronger more powerful main character, a way more creative setting, and has is written for many types of people. There are hidden parts in the story that make it also appeal to people of all ages. Sadly Lotr can barely appeal to 8th graders because they can't understand half of it. Also J.K. Is clearly a better writing. Lotr fans, I'm sorry to say but Happy Potter wins just ask the whole world.
Harry Potter is SPECTACULAR and Lord of the Rings makes me bored out of my mind. I suspect Lord of the Rings fans are aliens here to try and take over the world. J.R.R. Tolkien is probably their leader. They even have their own alien language, elvish I think. Be careful of them, you never know what they are going to do...
If you have to chose between a book about an exciting adventure where good fights evil using magical powers and a book about a hairy footed midget, I think it's pretty clear which one you would chose. It may surprise you that some people chose the second choice, Lord of the Rings, over Harry Potter, which is the first choice. The popular Harry Potter series, by J.K. Rowling is clearly superior to the also popular series, Lord of the Rings. As a whole, the Harry Potter series is more entertaining, relatable, and thoughtful, than the opposing Lord of the Rings.
The Harry Potter series also helps support feminism. In this story there are strong female characters that defy a stereotype. Hermione being the first one to come to mind, but also other characters such as Professor McGonagall. In Lord of the Rings, if a female is put into the story it is probably for the sole purpose of being someone's love interest. They rarely get involved in action scenes or show any depth in their personality. Therefore, Harry Potter is a breath of fresh air because it is so different from other books. This series allows girls to be seen as equals and capable of overcoming the stereotypes that are set on them, rather than allowing themselves to be unfairly judged.
Also, in this series the characters show themselves to be much more complex and interesting. J.K. Rowling herself said that no character is wholly good or bad in this story. Some characters are mostly bad, but they had a good beginning and purpose, and eventually went off track. Others are mostly good, but they do make some mistakes that move them slightly closer to the evil side of the spectrum. Another set of characters can't even be organized into a good or bad category because they have a wide variety of decisions that place them somewhere in the middle. In Lord of the Rings however, most characters can be easily sorted into either one side or the other, only varying slightly. In the end, the characters of Harry Potter are more complex and unexpected than the characters of The Lord of the Rings.
In conclusion, I believe that the Harry Potter series is much better than The Lord of the Rings series. For one, the main character in the Harry Potter series is much more relatable than the lead character in The Lord of the Rings. Also, the Harry Potter series supports feminism and the defiance of stereotypes. Lastly, the characters in the Harry Potter series are much more enjoyable to read due to their intricate nature. While The Lord of the Rings does inform the reader about the importance of friendship, the Harry Potter series also can this. With it's appealing characteristics that clearly outweigh those of The Lord of the Rings it seems ludicrous to prefer The Lord of the Rings. Help stop this foolishness and enjoy the Harry Potter series!
Harry Potter storyline is more complex and well constructed. Each character has a unique feel to the plot. Sequel after sequel, there's always a twist. Anything that happens happens with reason, most not discovered till later and once do always leave a jaw dropping effect. Take Snape for example, who knew he used to love the mother of the boy he treated with dismay? Who knew that he had killed Dumbledore in order to protect the boy and gain an immense trust? Each actions Snape produce always have a reason. This goes with every other character in the story. Each are like snowflakes, unique yet complicated despite the simplicity of it's design.
Harry Potter > LotR:
- Better world development (It's in the real world and not some easy fantasy place).
- Better character development (Look at characters like Snape, but also like the main character; Harry).
- Variety in characters (Gilderoy Lockheart, Dolores Umbridge, you won't find such unique, yet well-thought out characters in LotR).
- Evil might be good and good might be evil (In LotR there's a clear good and evil).
- Females play a role (Hermione, McGonnagall. How many females can you count in LotR?).
- Villain (Voldemort is a much more realistic villain; a human that became bad through power, and Hitler-wise raised an human army full of death-eaters, instead of some demi-god with no backstory at all).
I could go on, but I think it's clear.
The characters are way better... Take Gandalf and Dumbledore for instance. Gandalf gets killed by a giant fiery demon thing and comes back way more powerful than he was before. Dumbledore was killed by some emo guy with a dodgy hairbut.
Then take Frodo and Harry Potter. Harry gets annoyed easily and shouts at his friends for no particular reason, but Frodo was only a jerk because of the power of the ring.
First of all, name one disappointing movie from the LOTR series. Now name one from the Harry Potter series. When you ask someone "did you like the whole Harry Potter series?" They are most likely going to say no. There will always be a disappointing film or two in that series. Not all the Harry Potter movies that came out was better than the previous movie. However, in LOTR every movie that came out after the previous was better than the first. Now people might have there own opinion on which one was better, but at least they will say that the whole series was good. I am not saying that the Harry Potter series is bad, it is actually enjoyable, but LOTR is more appealing, has a better story line, has better scenery, the special effects were much cooler, and LOTR has a better soundtrack.
Gandalf – Dumbledore
Aragorn – Aragog
Sickle (constellation) – Sickle (coin)
Mirkwood/Old Forest – Forbidden Forest
Gurthang (Túrin’s sword) Wand of Death – The (Elder) Death Wand
Mirkwood Spiders – Forbidden Forest Spiders
"Longshanks" – Crookshanks
Beorn – Hagrid
Sauron – Voldemort
Longbottom (village) – Longbottom (Neville)
Ringwraiths (Nazgul) – Dementers
Mordor – Morsmordre
Old Man Willow – The Whomping Willow
Gwaihir the Eagle (friend to Gandalf) – Dumbledore’s Phoenix Fawks
Kraken – Giant Squid
Mirror of Galadriel – Mirror of Erised
Dumbledores (flies of Middle Earth) – Dumbledore
Butterbur (Prancing Pony Landlord) – Butterbeer
Ring of Finrod Felagund/Barahir – Opening to The Chamber of Secrets
Gollum (pity of Bilbo… betrayal of Frodo) – Kreacher (Dumbledore encourages kindness and pity… betrayal of Sirius)
Sirius (Helluin: one of the stars that awoke the elves) – Sirius Black
Wormtongue – Wormtail
Balrogs - Heliopaths
Fang (farmer maggot’s hound) – Fang (Hagrid’s hound)
Rings of power – Invisibility cloak
The One Ring – horcruxes
Bodies of the Dead Marshes – Bodies of the Cave Lake
Green Dragon, Hobbiton – Green Dragon Pub
Proudfoots – Proudfoot
Gandalf’s test from the Valar – Dumbledore refuses position of power, for fear of temptation
Morgoth (whom the Noldor name not) – Sauron (He who must not be named)
Carcharoth - Karkaroff
"Never laugh at live dragons" - "Never tickle a sleeping dragon"
Well let's be honest, Lord of the Rings wins over Harry Potter any day. Firstly, Lord of the Rings isn't just about a hobbit destroying a ring, well that's the main plot of the story, but it's also about courage, friendship and inspiration etc. For example, when the Rohirrim arrived at Gondor and when they knew their army was outnumbered, King Theoden gave his men the most spectacular speech ever and making them rise above fear and darkness. The Nazguls (Ring Wraiths) which are much better than the Death Eaters, the Nazgul are much more dangerous and would easily destroy the Death Eaters any day. When Gandalf fell in the Mines of Moria and then defeating the Balrog of Morgoth, he went into 'the void' and come back as Gandalf the White being more powerful. Sauron can only be destroyed by someone placing the ring into the fire of Mount Doom, while Voldermort can be more easily destroyed when the horcruxes. If you thought Sauron was powerful then you should see his master Morgoth/Melkor. Now going aside from the story and history of Middle Earth, the scenery and music in Lord of the Rings is just breath taking. Peter Jackson did manage to make everything in Lord of the Rings go perfectly with much less bloopers, while in Harry Potter there was twice as much. The speeches or phrases in Lord of the Rings give you that great feeling. But, don't get me wrong Harry Potter is a good film series but it doesn't win over Lord of the Rings FULL STOP.
Everything, I say everything, from Harry Potter is taken from Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was the father of all fantasy. I can appreciate works that are inspired from Lord of the Rings - I cannot appreciate works that are based on Lord of the Rings. In spite of the two stories being from two separate worlds, I am sorry to say that Rowling has taken too much from Tolkien for Harry Potter to be legit as an original fantasy tale. Thank you for reading this.
Middle-Earth feels real when you read the books due to Tolkien's need to plan out every inch of its land and every year of its history. Every culture and land has its own themes and stories (eg Rohan - horses) which is what it would be like if Middle-Earth really existed, however Harry Potter land feels like a bunch of children's stories thrown together. Also Peter Jackson did a great job of the films and the acting's really good too, whereas the child actors in Harry Potter just didn't have the emotional range they needed even when thrown in with professional actors like Gary Oldman. And don't say it's cos the actors in LOTR were more experienced adults because the stunt double for Pippin was a child actor and she did great.
Harry Potter is a great franchise with good movies and even better books, but it is not better than Lord of The Rings. Lord of the Rings is timeless entertainment. It is also one of the best movie trilogies of all time. It is in a different league than Harry Potter.
As the poster below me stated, apples and oranges. Harry Potter is a more universally appealing tale of a boy who perseveres against evil and builds relationships along the way. Lord of the Rings is an epic fantasy tale with wars and battles and more "traditional" mythical creatures. There's really little to compare the two on, except that they're both fantasy. I prefer Harry Potter, but others may prefer Lord of the Rings for different reasons. There's really no reason for them to be in a competition. It's up to each person to decide because that's all it comes down to: Personal preference. Neither one is better than the other.
Harry Potter is not better than Lord of the Rings. They are two very different stories. If one has more entertainment value than another, then that is due to an individual's preferences, not the works of art that they are. Lord of the Rings tells a very different story, and one cannot accurately judge value when such differences exist.
Harry Potter is a wonderful creation — I’ve felt tempted at time to write to Jo Rowling explicitly to thank her for such a gift. When I finished Deathly Hallows, I felt I’d rarely been so satisfied with a story. Complete (both internally consistent, and with all lines of development and questions brought to fulfilling conclusions), real, very human…
Rowling also did an exceptional job in making the stories comport with the point of view of a boy growing through his teen years, from the naive and impressionable 11-year-old to a young man deeply involved in a grievous and terrible war.