Harry Potter vs. LOTR
 

Choose citizens!

i will be totally disappointed if lotr doesn't win this one. harry potter is lame...the movies bore me to death.

I'd like if I could get a poll for this :)

How can you even compare the two? I am a fan of both of the series but...

Rowling is actually a terrible writer. In all of the books there are a plethora of grammatical errors and very unaesthetic sentences. Tolkien on the other hand, is a fantastic writer and a brilliant scholar. He was an unbelievable linguist and created his own languages! Rowling just stole a bunch of latin phrases.

LOTR was pretty original for its time, whereas the Harry Potter series seems like a rip-off of everything that came before it. The Dark Lord Sauron vs. The Dark Lord Voldemort... the horcruxes that Harry has to find and destroy verses the rings and the Ring of Power that Frodo has to destroy... etc.

Lord of the Rings to me is a masterpiece, Tolkien was a very intelligent scholar and a brilliant writer. Harry Potter on the other hand, although I grew up with the books and do enjoy them dearly, is nothing compared to LOTR... it's not as epic, not as well-written, not as in-depth as the whole entire universe of Middle Earth that Tolkien created. I mean, look at The Silmarillion.

I don't think they are comparable at all, and if you do compare them, it's an insult to Tolkien IMO.

:rofl: why do you always create embarrassing threads ?! You must stop... and as soon as possible!

They are comparable however. People compare them all the time. They also originated around the same time period. It is inevitable that people wold clump together the two biggest Fantasy movies of their time.




I'd never include Narnia though...

But you like Harry Potter more!

Uh, they didn't originate in the same time period...

The first Harry Potter book came out in 1997 and the Fellowship of the Ring came out in 1954 and The Hobbit in 1937-ish...

Movies I meant.

Well yeah.. but as a guilty pleasure (and I would've liked keeping it a secret lmao).

However, LotR is by far better, though I don't like it that much. I'm sure I'd get obsessed with it if I begin reading the books.

You can't talk about the movies without talking about the books that they came from. The movies are just on-screen adaptations of the ideas and storylines that were created in the books... if you're ONLY comparing the movies then that is a whole different ball game.

Maybe I should include it in the OP. Because I am only talking of the movies.

What would your opinion be on the movies however?

Haha, nothing's a secret here on MB ;)

I hate the HP movies ... then it's definitely LotR.

Yeah generally people will assume you're talking about the books.

As far as the movies go, LOTR still wins hands-down. They are an epic trilogy of films and I think the book was adapted so well onto the screen (see what I mean? You can't not talk about the book...). They were filmed in the beautiful New Zealand, marvelous actors, great movie score... they moved me almost as much as the book did. Plus they were directed by Peter Jackson who is one of the most awesome film directors ever.

The Harry Potter movies, although I quite like them, are more of dumbed-down teenage films which are a teensy bit lame IMO.

The problem I have with the LOTR movies is basically the replay factor. I can only watch them once or twice whereas I can probably see Harry Potter going on on television and quickly become re-engrossed.

i enjoyed both as a child; but pretty much what lateralus said. tolkein created an inspirationally vast and in-depth universe, which you have to go past the movies to see. i still respect tolkein's work and find it inspiring, whereas i just see the harry potter series as a child's diversion. it isn't really a good comparison.

I enjoyed the Potter films that I've seen, they're great escapist kids movies, but the LOTR trilogy is a cinematic masterpiece.

I don't think it's an insult to compare Rowling to Tolkien, she's clearly influenced by him and has an ever growing audience not unlike the one Tolkien has. But Potter is more or less a celebration of all the fantasy cliches, it simply puts it all into a giant blender. LOTR does the same thing to an extent but it had a lot more going for it, better character development, more action, a better balance of drama and humor, etc.

I haven't actually read the LOTR books but I adore the movies and apparrently while they leave out some events and characters they're still pretty loyal. Tolkien has created an extended universe unlike anything I've ever seen besides Star Wars and Star Trek. He was obsessed with detail, providing backstories for all the races and giving them all their own unique cultural traits, taking tons of influences from old folklore but blending it into something new.

I'm not saying Rowling hasn't done the same herself, it's just that Tolkien did it better. Still, she deserves props, the Harry Potter series has gotten tons of kids into books, has helped revived the fantasy genre and a lot of kids probably got into stuff like Tolkien through her.

Lord of the Rings is an easy win in the movie department. The Harry Potter films are actually kind of laughably bad...

As far as books go, Tolkein is definitely cooler. But.... a part of me will always love Harry Potter for some reason..... I really can't decide.

@boobs: There's actually a pretty significant change in the films in that Arwen is given a much bigger role. There was no love affair between her and Aragorn in the books. I personally find that whole relationship the biggest flaw of the films. Completely unnecessary pandering to the audiences. We really didn't need to see everyone paired off...:/


OT: As far as films are concerned, LOTR wins hands down. The books, well there's more of Harry Potter so I'd vote for that one. There's also much more humor and suspense. But I love them both, they're the books that got me interested in books so...

I think the reason why they had Arwen appear in the movies is because otherwise you would have no idea who she was and what her role was. In the books even though she wasn't 'there' per se, she still had a presence and we got to know her and her role. We knew something between her and Aragorn was going on (like Aragorn lamenting over something in Lothlorien, sitting next to her in Rivendell, already knowing Galadriel... etc.) So in the books she has a presence that builds up. She also gives Aragorn that banner and in a way convinces him to take reign as king. Think about it... if Arwen was included in the movies exactly as she was in the books we would have no idea who the hell she was or what her role was. Including her in several scenes in the movies was a necessity for her character.

So in the movies they needed to make her presence known somehow, and the only way was to include her in scenes. She was also in a fighting scene at the end, but they removed it because apparently Liv Tyler was a really girly fighter and it looked rubbish!

Anyway, arguably Arwen has a bigger role in the books because she is ultimately what I think convinces Aragorn to step up as king.

EDIT: Anyway, they do get paired off in the literary series - they get married. So imagine if in the film Aragorn got married to some Elf we'd never even seen before... it would be weird. They needed to introduce and build up her character somehow.

I didn't mind the Aragorn/Arwen scenes. Who wouldn't want to bang a Liv Tyler elf? Seriously.

I don't think Arwen was even in the Bakshi LOTR, which btw deserves more credit than it gets, Jackson even considers it an influence. And I think Bakshi actually did some things better than Jackson did.


Bakshi had to remove a LOT from the book, yet he managed to make a pretty adequete, well paced movie nonetheless. One thing I love about the Bakshi LOTR is the atmosphere, it had scenes that weren't really there to get the plot going but just to let you soak in everything around you, it had more subtely too and I liked how Sauron never makes an actual appearance, but you feel his presence just from how people talk about him. Bakshi used the power of suggestion instead of showing you everything, sometimes it produces a more powerful effect that way.

Sauron looked pretty ridiculous in Fellowship of the Ring with all his armor and stuff, they tried too hard to make him menacing looking. You keep waiting for him to say "SAURON SMASH!!!" or "SAURON GO BOOM!!!"

Bakshi's Aragorn was cooler too, and his Frodo was a bit more emotionally distant, but at the same time more courageous, cool and calculated. His Gandolf and Golum were great and not too different from the Jackson movies. He turned Samwise into a total clown though, sad to say.

Anyway. I would have liked for Jackson's trilogy to have more leisurely paced moments like the Bakshi film. Sometimes characters seem to talk really fast as if they just want to get some scenes over with.

Jackson's trilogy is still superior but sometimes the Bakshi cartoon did more with less.

I thought the first two were really good, they're the only ones I've seen.

Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix were three of the best IMO. You're missing out there boo boo

The first two are the only ones I can kind of respect, haha. The second one I actually thought was good.

I think the reason I think they're bad is because being the geek I am I notice every single little detail they missed. Kind of lame but true.

Also, what the hell was up with Ginny in the latest movie? Seriously, in the books Hermione is supposed to be pretty ugly, and Ginny hot, but then in the movies where Ginny had never appeared they suddenly realized "woah, like, we have to give Ginny a character" so they just picked some ugly chick with red hair. And Emma Watson is hot.


Just really annoyed me for some reason.....

What do you mean by details?

Continuity errors? Factual inaccuracies (which matter not in a fantasy film) or changes from the book?

I meant changes from the book. This is ridiculous of course, because I can't expect them to fit everything in, but I can't get over it:(


I don't mean to say I hate the movies with a passion or anything. I've enjoyed watching them with friends and stuff, I just would never watch them in any serious way.

Blah. To me, if a movie doesn't make SOME changes from the book, it's doing something terribly wrong.

I mean, what do people who read the book want? For all the same events to play out? What's the point of even doing an adaptation then?

Literature and movies are completely different forms of media and should be treated as such, changes should be made.

Harry Potter is the best series of books ever written.

But on the movies...

The second and fourth were great, the third and sixth were terrible, and the 1st and 5th were just okay. The seventh one's trailer looks very promising though.
The LOTR movies are pretty epic, but I rarely feeling like sitting through them.

I understand what you're saying; in fact, I love movies like High Fidelity etc. that made significant changes on the book (I think the Shining did too? I haven't read the book though).

There's just something about Harry Potter... some kind of disease. My comfort is of course that there are fans much more fanatical than me.

<-----

I don't understand why a movie should make changes. Yes, they could easily make a book like HP more theatrical, but my whole reasoning for seeing a movie based on a book, especially one I like as much as HP is to see my favorite events play out.

But the whole point of reading books is using your imagination. The problem with adaptating books is that it doesn't matter how close it follows the book, it still might not play out the way you'd imagine it. So you'll find something to nitpick about no matter what.

So it's pointless, the book already exists, you can already imagine how it would play out in a movie. The reason filmmakers want to adapt books is because they want to do a different take on it, THEIR take on it, show people how THEY would imagine it, how events would play out in THEIR world, do it THEIR way. IMO doing a 100% literal adaptation of anything is pointless. It's like doing a cover song that sounds exactly the same as the original, why do it?

Sometimes giving a big middle finger to the book is the wisest thing a director can do, most of Kubrick's films being great examples. In fact many of the best film adaptations are as different from the book as possible.

Yeah but if you read my post up there ^ about how the LOTR films changed one aspect of the book, you will understand how sometimes it is necessary to change something... things do not always play out on screen they same ways as they do in words so changes have to be made in order to stay true to the book and keep the same significance/ meanings.

Like I said, with two completely different mediums you need to make changes.

Just because it worked on paper doesn't mean it will work on film. You can't condense a novel that might take 10 hours to finish completely into a 2 hour movie without leaving sh*t out, you just can't.

And changing, removing or adding certain plot points, changing, removing and adding characters, these can all be necessary changes because again, things don't work out the same way in both mediums. Some things are only effective when written, and can't really be done visually. At the same time, film gives a story more potential than a book does, so it can be necessary to add things to complement the visual experience.

LOTR.. Surely?

Boo, exactly... which means that sometimes changing something actually means staying more loyal to the book, because you need to change it to fit the medium in order to convey the same kind of meaning/ significance/ emotion/ whatever.

Not to mention over the years certain parts of a book may lose it's relevance and it could use an update.

But if you're saying that everyone imagines a different version, doesn't that mean that even if the director follows it closely, it will still be different than how you imagine it? Isn't that what you're looking for?

Anyway. I think LOTR vs Narnia would have been a more interesting literary comparison if not a cinematic one. They have more in common at least.

Weren't Tolkien and C.S. Lewis like BFF or something?

Yeah, they were, and I agree they would have been a much better and interesting comparison. Seeing as Tolkien and Lewis were best friends who studied together and obviously had much literary influence on each other.

I enjoyed the first Narnia movie. :o: