Lord Of The Rings vs. Harry Potter

[on:]

I just want to know what movie of the two above is your favorite. I also would like to know what do you think about them.

[Reply #1 on:]

I've seen neither yet, but I plan to get both on DVD.

[Reply #2 on:]

I saw both once and I have to say I love LOTR and only tolerate Harry Potter.  The movie had appeal, but all those weird kids speakin' bloddy english is enough ta make yer head spin.  I'm sorry, but Daniel Ratcliffe just annoys me.  I'd rather see Rachel Dratch as Harry anyday.

[Reply #3 on:]

I can't believe anyone would rather see Rachel Dratch as anything anyday.

[Reply #4 on:]

I think that LOTR is much better than our good friend Mr.Potter. The acting is beter and I believe the story is better. Peter Jackson(the director)had real passion about the books and the actors too. Not like HP that one of the actors starred in the movie because his grandson demand him to do the role.

[Reply #5 on:]

Let me put it this way - I haven't come within 5 feet of a Harry Potter book, and have read the LotR trilogy several times.  Which do you think I'm going to vote for?

[Reply #6 on:]

In both book and movie form:

LOTR- Classic, timeless, wonderful trilogy

HP- Mediocre, will drag out to 7 books/films

[Reply #7 on:]

LotR Books: Very imporntant novels, backbone of modern fantasy, epic

HP books: Well done escapest light reading novels, fun

HP movie: Didn't take any risks, couldn't change the story AT ALL, felt like they just went through the motions of the book without finding out what exactly made the books enjoyable

LotR movie: Took risks to the plot that would piss off some fans, but they worked much better on the screen. Everyone had love and respect for the novels

HP made more money by 10 million in the US, LotR was more criticaly aclaimed and imho a much much better movie.

[Reply #8 on:]

i enjoy harry ptter much more,lord of the ring was worse than spy kida

[Reply #9 on:]

I don't know what a "ptter" or a "kida" is, but I know this: Lord of the Rings was the first three-hour-long movie in which I did not shift my arse once. Even during the long ones I have loved, there came at least one moment where my bum told me the director should've cut it a little. Not this time! And I haven't even read the books.

I haven't seen Harry Potter. Yet. I adore British accents and the effects look wonderful, but director Chris Columbus has a background loaded with artistic obscenities (if not commercial failures), so it'll take a little goading for me to pick this one up.

LOTR director Peter Jackson wasn't always successful--and his early stuff isn't for all tastes--but he always gave each project everything he had, and made it a little beyond the ordinary. He was the primary reason I saw LOTR, and I was not disappointed.

[Reply #10 on:]

I haven't read the Lord Of The Ring trilogy, but the first movie absolutely blew me away. I've read some fantasy-books, and done a little roleplaying thingies in my youth, and the movie is almost exactly like depicted it. Exciting story, beautyful aweinspiring scenes, excellent actors, and a director who really cares for his project. It was not a minute too long and they could've charged twice the a,ount without me feeling cheated.

Harry Potter: Newer read the books, newer saw the movie, but I think I wont like it. It just feels like the latest kiddy fad, hyped up to unbelievable proportions by the media. If it airs on national television (and I expect that to be anytime soon) i'll probably see it, just to say I've actually seen it, so now I can  berate it with credibility. But I refuse to pay money for it.

[Reply #11 on:]

I have never read any of the books referred to above. I am not interested in HP, because that 's just meant to be a b£ockbu$t€r.  And it 's meant for children.

They say J.K. Rowling makes kids read books again.  I say it stops them from reading other books.  I enjoyed Anthony Horowitz when I was younger.  I remember some of his books about a special school for magicians...Ring a bell?

LOTR is much more of a classic. But I'm not into fantasy.  Except for Stephen King's Dark Tower.

[Reply #12 on:]

I'm with Nix.  I've read the trilogy several times.  Definitely the greatest piece of SciFi/Fantasy ever written.  The movie was incredable.  The cinematography was outstanding...gotta love that NZ countryside!  McKellen was exactly how I pictured Gandalf.

[Reply #13 on:]

And this is a fair contest because... (?!)
One is the film of a timeless genre defining classic, the other is the film of some kids book.
don't know which is which? I feel sorry for you

[Reply #14 on:]

 

Originally posted by Delta-V:
Definitely the greatest piece of SciFi/Fantasy ever written.

[Homer's Brain] Explain how [/Homer's Brain]

[Reply #15 on:]

Didn't you know? Hobbits is Martians. They're the ones leaving "signs" in the cornfields. (Seriously, I think D-V is just grouping the two genres together, is all.)

[Reply #16 on:]

Harry Potter was good but it does not really compare to the Rings I'm affraid.

[Reply #17 on:]

I voted for LotR.
Anyone who votes for Harry Crapper is obviously someone who would settle for 5th rate garbage.

I've only read part of the first book of The Rings... But it what little I've read was beutifull.
The Movie was jaw dropping, awe inspiring, pants pissing, drop dead gorgeous.

I have read Every book in the Shannara Series, Kingdom for Sale/Sold, The Wheel of Time(Except for book 8    ), and two other fantasy series I can't recall the names of...
But never have I, and never will I ever read a Harry Crapper book.

As Teral said I may watch the Harry Crapper movie when It airs on TV but No way in hell will I ever pay good money to watch it!

[Reply #18 on:]

Actually, apparently the HP books have a fair bit of adult appeal to them, from what I've heard from people who've read them before the movie came out. I think hype over the movie and the subsequent merchandise as well as the fact that it was labelled 'the next big thing' for kids has turned a lot of people off actually reading the books for themselves. I think if it wasn't for the movie, the whole HP deal would be held in higher regard than it is. Remember, pop-culture has that awful ability incite cynicism in us over even the most simple things. MTV, film companies and the like push these things on us, rape them for all they're worth, throw away the over-exploited husk and move on to the next thing.

By the way, I liked Lord Of The Rings much more.

[Reply #19 on:]

 

By Erdrik:
Anyone who votes for Harry Crapper is obviously someone who would settle for 5th rate garbage.

 

never have I, and never will I ever read a Harry Crapper book.

Thank you for your honest, insightful opinion.

[Reply #20 on:]

I haven't seen the Harry Potter books, and I wasn't over impressed with LotR. It was too long, and didn't have an ending. I'm notoriously bad at watching any films and this one just didn't interest me very much. I probably will end up reading the LotR books though because most of my friends say they are amazing.

[Reply #21 on:]

 

Originally posted by FishyJoe:
 Thank you for your honest, insightful opinion.

your welcome. 

[Reply #22 on:]

 

Originally posted by bartman:
i enjoy harry ptter much more,lord of the ring was worse than spy kida

We have our new Nurdbot.   

[Reply #23 on:]

 

Originally posted by Archie2K:
I haven't seen the Harry Potter books, and I wasn't over impressed with LotR. It was too long, and didn't have an ending.

That might have a little something to do with it being a TRILOGY.

[Reply #24 on:]

I've read the first three HP books, and I've read Fellowship. They're both worthy of a read. The HP books tended to repeat themselves, but kept my interest  Fellowship bored me stiff for 150 pages, then started to pick up. I bet it made a better movie, though.

[Reply #25 on:]

You should watch it Kryten. It will blow you away(at least you will like it more than Harry Potter).Oh, and the ending of the movie is better than the ending of the book. In the book Boromir dies at the beginning of the Two Towers.

[Reply #26 on:]

It must be said that for all his brilliance and vision, JRR Tolkien could be so very long winded. Oh, and I am so glad they cut Tom Bombadil from the film, Tolkien wasn't too good with poetry either.

[Reply #27 on:]

 

Originally posted by Mr. Potter:
You should watch it Kryten. It will blow you away(at least you will like it more than Harry Potter).Oh, and the ending of the movie is better than the ending of the book. In the book Boromir dies at the beginning of the Two Towers.

Oh, thanks a LOT! I haven't read "The Two Towers" yet! 

[Reply #28 on:]

 

Originally posted by Ben:
 [Homer's Brain] Explain how [/Homer's Brain]

The two genre are usually grouped together. They have alot in common.  Tolken created a whole new world, with a deep, rich history and it's own complete languages - A whole other universe...so it's kinda like SciFi that way!    No other author in either SciFi or Fantasy has written anything to compare.  I guess the closest would be Anne McCaffery's world of Pern.

[Reply #29 on:]

Never seen HP, but I loved Lord Of the Rings. The movie was very well done, and I'd see the sequel as soon as it comes out. I liked how they cut the crap (especially those songs) from LotR. I'm reading Twin Towers now, and I own (well, my dad owns) the first and third. Good stuff.

I was actually kinda scared by LofR in some parts, especially when they torture Golum... even thou its only for a second, its really awful the way his fingers are twitching and they are squishing him... (shudder).

Awesome movie.

[Reply #30 on:]

 

Originally posted by Kryten:
 Oh, thanks a LOT! I haven't read "The Two Towers" yet!   

Excuse me but I really don't give away anything from the Two Towers(if you're planning to watch the Fellowship Of The Ring before reading the Two Towers)

[Reply #31 on:]

Why compare the two? One is great contemporary fantasy literature and one is classic fantasy literature. They are amed at two differant audiences. Both movies had good and bad points. I voted Potter. Why? I liked the art design, Ron was funny and Chris Columbus made the Home Alone movies.

[Reply #32 on:]

 

Originally posted by Mr. Potter:
 Excuse me but I really don't give away anything from the Two Towers(if you're planning to watch the Fellowship Of The Ring before reading the Two Towers)

Yeah... but you've also given away that Boromir dies at the end of the movie! Which I was planning to see first!

[Reply #33 on:]

Edit: removed angry post

[Reply #34 on:]

Next time use spoilers. 

[Reply #35 on:]

I would have to say LOTR, but Harry Potter was good too. In books I liked Harry Potter more than LOTR, because I thought it was a little too heavy to me. And guess what? When Harry Potter comes on VHS and DVD in Norway, there's two versons: English with Norwegian text, and Norwegian speech!   

[Reply #36 on:]

 

Originally posted by BumbleBeeTheta:
I saw both once and I have to say I love LOTR and only tolerate Harry Potter.  The movie had appeal, but all those weird kids speakin' bloddy english is enough ta make yer head spin.  I'm sorry, but Daniel Ratcliffe just annoys me.  I'd rather see Rachel Dratch as Harry anyday.

We dont all speak like that you know    Even though I'm English myself Daniel Radcliffe's voice was a little too posh for me. But we dont all speak like that you know. Different parts of the country have different accents. I'm not having a dig at you I swear. Just the film industry for presenting English people that way 

I've never seen LOTR but I tried reading the books and never got into them much so I'm gonna go with Harry Potter 

[Reply #37 on:]

 

Originally posted by Kryten:
 Yeah... but you've also given away that Boromir dies at the end of the movie! Which I was planning to see first!

Okay, I learned my lesson.

[Reply #38 on:]

OK, as long as you have.

[Reply #39 on:]

 

Originally posted by Delta-V:
The two genre are usually grouped together. They have alot in common. Tolken created a whole new world, with a deep, rich history and it's own complete languages - A whole other universe...so it's kinda like SciFi that way!  No other author in either SciFi or Fantasy has written anything to compare. I guess the closest would be Anne McCaffery's world of Pern.

Science fiction (Sci-fi) is fiction that is made possible by fictional science. The things within it that are immpossible to us are made possible by fictional technologies.
Fantasy fiction (Fantasy) is fiction that is made possible through fantastic means not explainable by science. Tolkien's Middle Earth books really defined the genre of fantastic fiction.
There are crossovers. Postapocalyptic fiction is generally classed as Sci-fi but the Shannara series by Terry Brooks was postapocalyptic even though there was a strong magical element. Likewise there is a quote (I cannot remember from whom) that says: 'Technology of a significantly high level is indistinguishable in every way from magic'.
It is better to imagine the whole fiction thing as a circle. Contemporary fiction blending into Sci-fi blending into Fantasy blending into contemporary. The genres are distinct with grey areas in between.