what do you think is better, harry potter or lord of the rings? (books and/or movies)?

Question

i want to know which one you thinnk is better and why. personally, i think lord of the rings whoops harry potter by a long shot. lotr rules!!

Answer 1

I am an LOTR fan and I am so tempted to say that, of course, Lord of the Rings takes the cake. Middle Earth is a genius world, completely fleshed out and made almost real -- and to think that it isn't based on modern times. The characters are also better explored.

BUT --- Harry Potter is a different vein from LOTR. Yes, they are both fantasy fiction, and they are both about good versus evil, but the similarity ends there. It would really be unfair to compare both. HP has its own strengths and I respect the people who like it.

Can't dissuade me from loving LOTR more though. :)

Answer 2

Read the Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings books and I prefer the books to the movies. It gives you a more detailed story and I must say, even though I love the movies as well, that the Harry Potter movies are no match on the books. Lots of interesting dialogue get cut from the movie, which is such as shame. With the Lord of the Rings, I felt that the books were a bit monotonous and that the movies were more bearable. Overall, my favorite is the Harry Potter books.

Answer 3

Harry Potter has wide appeal because it's so easy to read, but Lord of the Rings is definitely better. With Harry Potter, Harry is always right, Harry can break rules and throw temper tantrums and he'll still be te hero. As the books go on, it feels like her editor is afraid to cut the Great JK's stuff, and as a result, the stories drag. Harry starts acting like a PMSing girl.

Whereas LotR...gosh. Tolkien's created a realistic (well, fantastically believable) world that goes beyond normal writerly world-building. Languages, histories, you name it, he's done it. There are motifs and allegories and allusions and it's just...more mature, more literary, but also more interesting to read. And as for films, LotR CGI > HP. The actors suited their roles more (what happened to Hermione's bushy hair?), the scenery in LotR was beautiful, and it was just a whole lot more kickass. LotR forever =)

Answer 4

They both have their strong points. Harry Potter starts at an intermediate reading skill and increases, so it is better for younger children. LOTR is great for more advanced readers. I will encourage my children to read both.

As far as the movies go... I think they took some liberties with LOTR that they shouldn't have... ie: Farimir (sp) was never tempted to take the ring from Frodo. They changed an integral part of a characters personality.

They took liberties with the HP movies as well... but thus far they haven't messed with the elements of the characters themselves. However... they added things that weren't in the books (the choir scene, for one), that they could have used the time for putting more of the actual story into the movie. (Ton-tongue toffee, anyone?)

So... the books all have their strong points, the movies all have their weaknesses. I don't prefer one set over the other, I enjoy each for what it is.

Answer 5

LOTR'S by far. I first read the books back in the 70's, and have reread them a number of times. The world that was created by Tolkien the Potter books can't even begin to touch.
Much the same way with the movies.Even though Jackson omits alot of material,esp. in the last movie,he still managed to capture the magic of the books. He made Middle Earth "real" to many people.
I've seen the Potter films...I'm not that impressed with them.

Answer 6

Harry Potter is a good book, but it does not fit in the same classification with LOTR. LOTR will be a classic for countless generations. Harry will be forgotten. Tolkien created seven languages and endless histories and genealogies just for it. It's an enchanted book. The men and the women in it are beautiful and both will make you cry. Parts of it are a portrait of heaven.

Answer 7

Lord of the Rings is definitely the winner!

I think Harry Potter is too revolved around just Harry. Just Harry is chosen, just Harry has to save the world, just Harry...
But with LOTR, four Hobbits chose to save the world. And they were joined by other to help. Some turned evil for a bit, one died, one came back to life. One had a hot brother. Plus, LOTR-ROTK had the best fighting scenes with those Orliphants. Ah, yes. I do have a soft spot for the last of a trilogy fighting.

Answer 8

I think Lord of the Rings is far more complex with lots of archetypes and motifs. Harry Potter is an easier read so many people find it more entertaining, but I would argue that Tolkien was a more intelligent author and a deep thinker. But J.K. Rowling is very creative!

Answer 9

nothing can compare to LOTR in terms of the book and the movie. one of my fav of all times, i love how it is just so rich in detail, and the storyline is just on another level compared to other fiction-fantasy genre books. i think LOTR movie is one of the best adaptations.
on the other hand, im still a harry potter fan, and follow it religiously though i really think the movie franchise is a great dissapointment.

Answer 10

Neither one is better than the other (although the LotR movies have been better than the last three HP movies released to date). While common themes in the two are friendship and good triumphing over evil, Lord of the Rings is more about the power of friendship while Harry Potter is more about being able to believe in one's self and your own abilities.

Even before the the Fellowship was formed Frodo was relying on his friends. But once the Fellowship is formed, it is rare to find any one member being away from other members for any amount of time. When the Fellowship is broken at the Falls of Rauros, it tends to stay together in a sense as those still living now travel together in three groups. Even after Gandalf returns and is reunited with members of the Fellowship he is rarely seperated from at least one member. And when members are seperated from other members they tend to find other friends to help them get through their adventures.

Though it is Gollum who saves Middle Earth in the end, Frodo would not have been able to make it to the Crack of Doom without Sam always by his side. Perhaps that right there is the greatest example of the importance friends play in LotR. It seems it's always ones friends that help the characters keep going, that help them find and achieve their goals.

In Harry Potter, while friends are important, it tends to come down to the individual. Harry can rely on Ron and Hermione in "Sorcerer's Stone" to help him get through all but the final puzzle where he finds himself alone against Voldemort and Quirrel. Though he enters the tunnel leading to the Chamber of Secrets with Ron and Lockhart, thanks to a cave in he finds himself alone in the chamber. Harry is constantly finding himself either alone, the last one standing, or the only one that can do what needs to be done. He may have assistance (Fawkes in the chamber, Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix coming to the rescue in the Ministry of Magic battle), but he's got to rely on himself and his own abilities when it comes right down to it.

So both books are on an even footing as the one shows clearly the importance of friends while the other shows the importance of being able to trust in yourself.