LOTR hand down. Harry potter movies are a load of ****.

I think the HP films are hella fun, they're not in the league of LOTR but that's because they're not epics, they're like fantastical detective stories, but for what they are, they're quite enjoyable.

^

Yep. Harry Potter films are what they are, not very good but very watchable. Lord of the Rings are on another level.

I've only seen the first two films but they weren't bad at all, they were very well made films, and quite entertaining.

Even if a film wasn't very well made, if it was still a very entertaining watch, I would still call it a good film even if it's the "so bad it's good" variety.

All I know is the first two HP films are legitimately good, I dunno about the rest but since I've always heard that they're a lot better then the first ones I'm curious in checking them out

Isn't Prisoner of Azkaban directed by the guy who made Children of Men?

Goes down hill from the first two I reckon, but still it's worth following the story. I've seen every single one to date and I have no idea why. :laughing:

And yeah it is, Alfonso somethingorother. Can't remember.

It's almost up to the last one, you should watch them all in time to go and see the grand finale at the cinema. ;)

I'm not sure how people are liking the first two films. Even as a kid I hated them, and the acting is just terrible.

Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith and Richard Harris terrible?

If you're referring to the kids, well, they're kids, and they're pretty decent by those standards I'd say.

Yeah, I thought that Richard Harris did a terrible job. And the kids. Generally, as someone who doesn't pay much attention to acting, I hold everyone to the same standard - which is basically that it shouldn't occur to me how bad the acting is. And there's plenty of examples that child actors can hold their own in this regard.

So yeah, the first two films did absolutely nothing for me and I would say the series has gotten better with each instalment. I think part of it is that outside of animation, I'm not a huge fan of kids films, even as a kid.

In terms of both movies and books Lord of the Rings has to win hands down.

I've not seen either:o:

You're kidding?

And you're from New Zealand, too!

Cheese cheese cheese... at least you'll get better with age :p:

LOTR cuz it gets me in the mood for some D & D?

Obviously Harry potter movies , according to me all series are fabulous and far better than LOTR. As such I like all the parts but my favourite among them are Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, where Harry Potter is an eleven year old boy and as a baby As a baby, he was attacked by Lord Voldemort who killed his parents.

Yeah obviously the Harry Potter films are better, that's why the poll is clearly in favour of LOTR..

LOTR for the win. The orc's battle trumpets are enough to get you going. However, I do have a slight crush on Luna Lovegood...

LOTR are probably better movies, but have you tried to read those things?! Harry Potter all the way. I'm proud to be a pot-head.

The first page clearly stated "The movies! Not the books!" =/ So if LOTR's movies are better, according to you...

Harry's gonna be angry.

Harry Potter is obviously superior... if you're 9.

Harry Potter's Voldemort and Death Eaters fail in comparison to LOTR's Sauron and witch kings.

Just saw this today, huge disappointment for those looking forward to the Hobbit.

Del Toro Exits The Hobbit - Movies News at IGN

Oh, woops. I voted Harry before I even saw the OP.

LOTR movies > HP movies

HP books >>>>>>>> LOTR books

Personally for me, Lord of the Rings wins hands down no contest (both the movies and the books). I still enjoy the Harry Potter movies (and books) though. Very much so. They just won't ever be up there with Tolkien for me.

Man that sucks.

why would he give up the job when he's gonna have his hands mostly in it anyway?

EDIT: RVCA what the fuck are you talking about?

Both really aren't that great writers if I'm going to be honest, at least in their fields, and if you compare their prose with other literary greats like Fitzgerald, Pynchon, Vonnegut and such they just don't stand up. Even against other speculative fiction greats like Mieville, Phillip K. D*ck and Lovecraft, they are lacking. Rowling wrote with the sophistication of a high-schooler and Tolkien's style doesn't lend well to conveying action, which is an essential thing in the epic fantasy field. However, you can't deny the scope of Tolkien's imagination and creativity and the joy of his description of the land itself. Few writers have such an appreciation of nature as he, I feel. Tolkien gets leeway since he essentially created fantasy and had nothing else to compare his work with except Homeric epics.

But anyway, LOTR was much better and the Harry Potter movies were bland to me.

edit: I knew you would block out Mr. Phillip.

I dunno, my opinion? I'm not a movie connoisseur, nor am I a book connoisseur, but in my opinion the HP series was far more enjoyable and memorable than the LOTR series.

Yes, I've read all of both series. But my opinion probably has to do with my age. I grew up following the story of Harry Potter, and it'll always be part of my childhood. LOTR was one of those stinky old books your dad read when he was a kid.

LOTR isn't a kids' book, that's your main problem.

Right, well maybe I'll re-read the trilogy over summer and get back to you

i really cannot fathom how these two are even comparable. it's apples and oranges.

HP is fun. it's whimsical. it makes you feel good because everyone can relate to poor misunderstood harry and his new found fame.

LOTR is entirely different. frodo isn't bubbling around an enchanted castle eating pumpkin pasties and battling a dark lord in his spare time. he is bearing an enormous physical and metaphorical token of evil.

i know this thread is about the films, but you cannot divorce the pretty special effects from the underlying themes.

i think harry potter is better and it is my openion which can be right or wrong :):)

and i love emma watson very much she is cute and hot :D

Let's face it, anyone that thinks the The Harry Potter Movies are better really don't have a grasp on films. Harry Potter films are fun, LOTR films are a cinematic journey.

I`m amazed that this thread has lasted so long and even more amazed that 11 people seem to think HP is better!!!

The thing with closing a thread like this, it's such an obvious yet weak comparison that someone new could make it again.

So with respect to films, do any of you guys account for replay factor?

How many time can you honestly sit through the LOTR movies more than once? Not to mention how many of you can actually watch the extended version (6hrs per film) without fast forwarding at one point.

The Harry Potter movies on the hand do have a great deal of replay value and besides being extremely fun are also cinematic masterpieces. Maybe LOTR is out of Harry's league but it shouldn't be as easily dismissed as the majority of you all claim it should.

I think the HP movies are pretty hit-or-miss. The good ones have some replay value, the bad ones have about zero. All three LOTR movies, on the other hand, I've found to be very re-watchable despite how long they are (and I can't imagine fast-forwarding them, or any other movie for that matter).

I think the best films are films that you can't watch over and over again, a film with a twist so unfathomable that there's no point in really watching it again. Unless you get the urge. LOTR is an intense journey, Harry Potter will be on every Christmas for the family to watch.

Except that the Harry Potters are much more gender friendly. After the first LOTR its all just a bunch of trees fighting and ugly things called Uruk-Hai. Ive spent far too many occasions keeping myself awake at those LOTR marathons, while every single guy basically yelps with joy.

While the LOTR are much better cinematographic examples, the Harry Potters appeal to both sexes and are far more amusing than dying orks.

lol wut.