October 19, 2001

Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings

There are a couple of movies coming out relatively soon. It's possible that you've heard of them, since they've had two or three magazine covers. My favorite is the Premiere magazine cover that had Hagrid from Harry Potter. Robbie Coltrane is a fine casting choice for Hagrid, although I have to assume that Brian Blessed was unavailable.

I've also seen a couple of impressive Lord of the Rings magazine covers, although most of them seemed to feature Gandalf over the more central character of Frodo. But let's face it, nobody's watching this movie because they're huge fans of Merry and Pippin. Hobbits are nice, but it's bearded wizards lighting up the night with fireworks that looks impressive.

I have to say, the kids today don't know how good they have it. In my day, we had to watch movies like "Clash of the Titans"". And we grew up thinking that Harry Hamlin was an acceptable hero of a fantasy movie. That's no way to live. And now, I have to say, both of these movies look pretty good so far. I'm not guaranteeing quality, you understand, but the trailers are low on the Jar-Jar factor.

Lord of the Rings (excuse me, I mean "Fellowship of the Ring") comes out on December 19. And Harry Potter (which I should be calling "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone", which just goes to show you that both of these movies are thinking ahead with regard to sequels) comes out a month earlier, on November 16. Somewhere, someone is going to be under the impression that big, fancy fantasy movies come out every single week. That person is going to be mighty disappointed in January.

For various reasons, I'm hoping both movies are really good and do huge business. For one thing, the company I work for makes a Harry Potter card game. And let's face it, D&D isn't a million miles away from Tolkien. In other words, popular movies=successful company=job security for Monty. But also, I just want to see good movies to try to wash out the taste of the various terrible fantasy movies I've seen in my life.

I find it interesting that the movies are adaptations of books written decades apart. One of the challenges that Lord of the Rings faces is the uber-goobs who will notice and complain about every single variation from the books. And one of the challenges Harry Potter faces is that the author (J.K. Rowling) is alive and very much in charge of her intellectual properties. That's got to be hard on the director and actors, many of whom will be used to making wacky script changes willy-nilly.

I'm trying not to be too optimistic about these movies. Some people claim that the Harry Potter movie is going to be "bigger than Titanic." I'm just hoping it's "bigger than Red Sonja."

i think lord of the rings is the best movie in the world!!!! harry potter movies are good to, but in lord of the rings, legolas aka orlando bloom is there!!! he is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hott!!!!!! growl!! so is johnny depp :-D

Posted by: Emily at October 3, 2003 04:33 PM

LORD OF THE RINGS IS NOTHING TO HARRY POTTER BOOK WISE AND MOVIE WIZE!!! Harry Potter is all about facing your fears and bravery and stuff like that ...okay so lotr has that too but the reason most people like the movies are because of legoles who is very hot but I still say hp is way better. Oh and one question to everyone here do you guys think ron and hermione should get together or harry and hermione. I support ron and hermione because it super obvious but i want to know your opinions too oh and even you h/h supporters can try and give evidence (EVEN THOUGH THEIR IS NONE NONE NONE NONE)

Posted by: Mia at October 18, 2003 10:49 AM

i like both movies... but i'd have to say that lord of the rings rocks! harry potter is good too.. but its more childish... plus... Orlando bloom aka Legolas greenleaf is sooooooooo hott!

Posted by: Emily Peerboom at November 20, 2003 03:02 PM

LORD OF THE RINGS IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH BETTER THAN HARRY POTTER!!!!AND IM NOT SAYING THIS JUST BECAUSE I HARRY POTTER,BECAUSE I REALLY LIKE HARRY POTTER.BUT LORD OF THE RINGS BEATS HARRY POTTER BY ALOT!

Posted by: Something at December 2, 2003 01:56 PM

The Lord of the rings is SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than the harry potter movies

Posted by: kristina at December 23, 2003 01:03 PM

Mia, I liked the Lord of the Rings because of the absolute strength of the characters. Do you see harry running around a land infested by thousands upon thousands of hostil creatures? Lord of The rings is about never giving up, no matter what. harry potter is for commercialism.

Posted by: Tom at January 2, 2004 06:47 PM

I really like both movies tons!!! I've seen them both a million times!! Both the movies have real great actors and crew. I even when to Canton, NY to meet Viggo Mortensen who plays Aragorn in the LOTR. My answer to Mia (above) is that I think Harry and Hermione should get together because in the fifth book Harry starts to really like Cho Chang and they kiss and everything, but on Valentine's Day Harry meets Hermione and makes Cho think that he likes Hermione!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Donata Lorenzo at January 13, 2004 02:21 PM

Hello!!!! LOTR is Wayyyyyyyyyy better than Harry Potter. Sooo much more realistic, i mean people could relate to Lotr. Like "knowing what you have to do, but being afraid to do it" like Frodo says in the FotR. I can realate to that. Oh ya, Olando is not the only hottie in Lotr, Elijah makes such a yummy nummy hobbit!!!!

Posted by: Raven Valentina at January 15, 2004 08:53 AM

HARRY POTTER BOOKS ARE WAY BETTER THAN LOTR MOVIES. I mean i love the lord of the rings movies tons, but they are only a fraction of how much i love harry potter books, the reason being is that the harry potter books rock the world!

Posted by: hplover at January 28, 2004 04:53 PM

lord of the rings is so much better than harry potter. and incase some of u harry potter fans didn't know LOTR was writen and published in the 60's so harry potter is obviously another take off, of it and a very lame one might i add! for example in lotr u have smeagol aka gollum and in harry potter u have dobby, just one of the lame copyrights that has been produced by the harry potter writer

Posted by: tassy at February 3, 2004 07:12 PM

lord of the rings it's better than harry potter because it was written by one of the best writters ever (i'm talking about quality of writting please, ok, no best sellers, i absolutely respect the work of j.k rowling but her way of writting it's just not as good as tolkien's) in an era where especial effects didn't even exist, it was all about imagination. and actors and director are better!!! it's not just a question of "orlando bloom is hot" (hehe, we all know that) but it's the quality of the mvoie & books what we should have to take into account.

Posted by: l�thien at February 28, 2004 02:24 PM

LORD OF THE RINGS SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
POTTER RULZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
GREATEST MODERN FANTASY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LORD OF THE RINGS IS COMPLICATED AND BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

POTTER IS FUN AND EASY TO READ

WHITE COOKIE SAYS SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: at March 22, 2004 07:58 AM

Posted by: POTTER COOKIE at March 22, 2004 07:58 AM

Pesonally I like both books/movies but I would have to say Harry Potter is better.I think that it is amazing how a woman that was on welfair could become richer than the queen buy writting a book. Also I think that the charactors in the book are going through the same thing alot of kids are but in a fun and exciting way. I mean Harry has to deal with bullies and teachers and homework like almost if not all kids have to go through.

Posted by: rongirl91 at April 2, 2004 01:47 AM

I like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings a lot. But I think Harry Potter is better becuse people can really relate the the character. And Rupert Grint is so hot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Ember at April 6, 2004 02:52 PM

What I want to know, are u guys talking about the Books or the movies??? I think the LOTR movies are waaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy better than the Harry Potter movies, but iv'e only started reading the LOTR books and I like the Harry Potter books better.

Posted by: Skizzik at April 7, 2004 11:04 AM

Anyone who says Harry Potter is better than Lord of the Rings is a dumbass,May I remind you that the Lord of the Rings is the most popular novel ever written? anyone who says the Lord of the Rings was complicated was because it was far beyond their level of comprehension,BTW you all sound like freekin 10 year olds!

Lord of the Rings: Return of the King,the greatest movie of all time! The Harry Potter movies were boring the acting was absolutely terrible! it was a joke!

Posted by: Phill Macrack at April 30, 2004 08:59 AM

I think harry potter is little better than LOTR but... LOTR is more,more and more better and great than harry potter. And legolas is so hot. I like his hair and his action.

Posted by: rossie at May 4, 2004 10:38 PM

Lord of the Rings haters can be identified by the following traits.

1. Their grammar, spelling and general grasp of the English language is absolutely terrible. This speaks volumes for their intellect.

2. They simply cannot understand the Lord of the Rings movies. They try but fail, and are humiliated by their own stupidity. It is this that leads to their irrational hatred of the films.

3. Their abhorrent taste in films

4. They always live with their parents (regardless of age). Their will never move out due to their fear of the outside world, their inability to interact with other human beings in person and the fact that they're still a virgin despite the fact they are over 40.

5. Gross obesity.

6. Extremely bad personal hygiene. Rashes, acne, dandruff, warts and horrid cheese-like odours are all very common among trolls.

7. Impotence.

8. Virginity - although I mentioned this already it deserves its own category. The fact that these people CANNOT get laid under any circumstances leaves them feeling extremely cheated and frustrated to say the least, so of course they take out their frustrations on anything other people enjoy - such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

9. Inbreeding. It is common knowledge that many trolls have parents who are related - usually brother and sister, although stranger combinations have been reported. (Involving a rabid goat.)

10. Their hobbies. Outside of bashing films purely because a lot of people like them their hobbies are few, but include the following:

* Masturbating frantically to internet pornography.
* Smelling their own socks.
* Surfing the net in search of pictures of nude female celebrities (usually Star Trek and X-Files cast members.)
* Talking crap. (Hugely popular)
* Exceeding download limits (due to excessive pornography downloads.)
* Rubbing up against women in crowds.
* Naming their imaginary friends.
* Soiling themselves.
* Wearing their Mother's underwear.

Posted by: Phill Macrack at May 6, 2004 12:55 AM

i'm rinisha in malaysia.....hey!!!!!!how dare people talk bad about Harry Potter!!!Hah!i will punch the person......i will kill myself if Harry Potter ask me to do.........stupid Lord Of The Rings........Use common senseanyone,who angry with me,COME and mail me at rini_9hk@yahoo.com........At last,LOTR SUCKS and HP is the best.........

Posted by: Rinisha at May 17, 2004 05:47 AM

If Lord of the Rings sucks so much why is it being hailed as the best movie trilogy of our time? it earned a lot more than faggot Harry Potter did with his bad wooden acting!

Posted by: at May 18, 2004 01:46 AM

HA! I can't believe that this even comes to this debate. Harry Potter, in MY opinion, is an average novel... it's o.k but it's not anything special and has still got to get over the level of "fad." The Lord of The Rings however is a masterpiece, written by a genius. I mean, he made up his own languages and he was a professor in Old English. I'm gonna be blunt, HP does not deserve to be on the same bookshelf as LOTR, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales. It's like comparing My First Colouring book to Macbeth. All you HP fans who say that LOTR is too complicated or boring, try reading the actual book(s) from cover to cover

Posted by: Tantalion at May 24, 2004 11:54 AM

I dont see why people feel they have to choose.

I love both.
I prefer the Harry Potter books, but the LOTR films.

Both are fantastic, in their own way.
Their completely different , but just get compared, but unfairly so.

Posted by: D at June 4, 2004 11:59 AM

you guys are comparing apples and oranges. I like both of the books and movies equal, but they are opposite. btw Legolas was a a fucking gay elf who's only reason that he's popular is because he killed the elephant thing by himself and slid down the stairs on a shield like a skateboarder

Posted by: unknown at June 6, 2004 08:56 PM

i hated lotr. jrr must of been on crack when he freaking wrote this thing. he also must of not of had a girl friend if he wrote his own language that only him and other losers with no life understand. it is not a mastepiece. but neither is harry potter whose books at least make some sense. i understood lotr but again jrr was on crack

Posted by: supid at June 6, 2004 09:01 PM

OK. First of all, most of you don't even have good reasons for not liking one or the other. You have to compare shear writing and cinemotography to make a fair judgement of which is better. And I'm going to come out and say it right now, Lord of the Rings is better in both cases. Tolkien created, arguably, the greatest epic fantasy of all time. Rowling created a completely unoriginal child's tale. Tolkien fathered a world complete with it's own vast history, not to mention completely innovative languages. Rowling mothered a place that is oddly enough, just like England and a boy who is suspiciously similar to Timothy Hunter. For those of you who don't know, Timothy Hunter was an English boy with an owl created by Neil Gaiman in the Books of Magic, which was released before Rowlings works. Now that we've established that Lord of the Rings is vastly superior to Harry Potter in novel format, let's move on to movies. I'm going to keep this short and sweet. Lord of the Rings is much better. The acting is better. The writing is better (probably because the book is better). The editing, special effects, and score are better. Let's face it, it will be a cold day in hell when Harry Potter wins best picture. There you have it folks. No matter how you argue it, Lord of the Rings will always be better than Harry Potter.

Posted by: at June 12, 2004 01:31 AM

LEGLIS IS LIKE TOTALLY HOT, BUT HP WAS A REAL HOTY AZWELL HP BOYZ WASNT As CUTE LOTR BUTITHINK THAT HP WAS BETTER BECAUSE I HAVE RED HAIR LIKE THAT GRRL;) HP RRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLZZZZZZZZ FFFFFFFFOOOOOOOORRRRRRRREEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVEEEEEEERRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: 12 year old girl at June 18, 2004 12:18 AM

H.P SUCKS !!!!especially the films ! you really have the impression that it's in slow motion.Daniel radcliffe sucks the only actor i like is michael gambon (dumbledore in 3) cause he's iish !!!!! lotr rules the universe!!!!!

Posted by: irish citizen at June 27, 2004 10:35 AM

I was A HP fan when I was aged btw 9-12, but I saw LOTR and Loved it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOTR ROOOOCKS !!!!!!!

HP is for kids !!!!!It is sooooooooooooooooo unrealistic

Posted by: at June 28, 2004 10:30 PM

Lord of the Rings is by far the better series. The books and the films both are more attractive to the eye and mind, but the acting is far superior in the Trilogy.

Posted by: Courtney at June 30, 2004 04:49 PM

JRR Tolkien was an English writer who wrote LOTR after WW I. He finished in the 1950s. He had several children and a loving wife. He was also extremely christian. No crack for him.

Also, the books are very easy to understand. It's just that the people who can't and/or wont(Potter fans)are too damn obsessive over a children's book. Really, it's not meant for people who don't understand it. You need to be intelligent or older.

Im just 14, by the way.

Posted by: Ugh at July 3, 2004 01:11 PM

Well to start of i have o say that lotr i way better than harry potter in movies n books the eason why , cause lotr deals wiht the challenge between good n evil , freinship n lost , and the main reason is that in the end freindship n fate conquers all, while harry potter deals with god knows wat n tey stories r to childih n they chage settings n charcaters in evry damn book n , also i study russian literature n my teacher said that harry potter is a rip off old russian folk stories n peter pan,.lort is the greatest book ever writen.......

Posted by: Arathorn at July 4, 2004 12:29 AM

I love both of them. the lord of the ring movies is so much better than the harry potter ones. but the harry potter books are better than the lord of the rings. over all i like lord of the rings because orlando bloom and vigo mortanson

Posted by: the bitch at August 25, 2004 11:13 PM

I absolutley LOVE Lord Of The Rings. I like Harry potter to but Orlando bloom is in it and he is 1 of my favorite actors. And Aragorn RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Jenna at September 22, 2004 10:13 PM

hi!!!!!!!!
i like both of them!!!!!!!!
i like daniel radcliffe!!!!!!!
he's sooooooooooooo cute!!!!!!!!!!
i also like orlando bloom!!!!!!!!!!!
wahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!
well, all i can say about legolas is..........
he is super duper cute!!!!!!!!!!!!!
as in veeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy cute!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: jam at October 23, 2004 10:11 PM

is
sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
adorable (can i have him as a christmas present - or even his signed poster -or phone##
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: orlando bloom at November 16, 2004 01:47 PM

The lotr moovies suck so much but the books r way better that the Harry Potter, let's face it, harry potter is the most stupid thing I've ever seen, it's for 2 yrs old kins, and all that hp mania, all those pink and fluffy girls, that think they have magical powers...

Posted by: Erunhere at November 23, 2004 10:21 AM

Both books, and movies are really interesting.
However, L.O.T.R is more attractive and eye catching for "ALL AGES". That is because it is full of adventure, drama, and fantasy. Of course harry potter is also has all the componenet, but lord of the rings aquires those ingredients in a better way.Lotr is suitable for all audience, but harry potter is more of a young viewers film. so the lord of the rings is better.about the books, of course, the level of writing in lord of the rings exceeds tha one in harry potter, because j.r.r tolkien is more professional then j.k rowling. in fact it took j.r.r tolkien 14 years to write the lort, and it took j.k rowling, less then 8 years to write 4 books, so more effort was done by j.r.r tolkien. LORD OF THE RINGS IS BETTER THEN HARRY POTTER.

Posted by: mithrandir at December 10, 2004 02:39 PM

Heh, the only people who say LotR is better also say, 'OMGGGGGG LEGOLAS AKA ORLANDO BLOOM IS THERE!!! HES SOOOO HOTT!'

Firstly, the Harry Potters are more gripping (and I read The Hobbit and the first book.)

Secondly, no body who like Harry Potter likes it because of some actor. We like the books, hot Brit actors come second to JK Rowling.

I have no problem if you like LotR, but if it's for Orlando Bloom, you ruin the magic of literature.

Posted by: Joanne at December 25, 2004 07:50 PM

Nate, I have a question. What kind of comment is, 'there's no doubt about it.Lord of the Rings is definetly better than harry potter plus it has a better story.'?

What do you mean, ''Plus, it has a better story.''? Isn't that elementry?

Posted by: Jo again at December 25, 2004 07:54 PM

I know, I shouldn't be so choppy, but alas.

In my opinion, the LotR AND the HP movies sucked. Yes, I am more appealed to HP, because of Alan Rickman, and I'd rather watch him than Bloom/Mortensen any day. But, in gemeral, the HP movie(s) doesn't/don't compare to the book(s.)

LotR sucked as a book because of it's smarminess. That is all.

Posted by: Jo, again, again at December 25, 2004 07:58 PM

yo wtf...
i cant beleive this site
HOW DARE U COMPARE THOSE DUM LITTLE MUPPET FILMS,
WITH MY ALL TIME FAV MOVIES(I LIKE FOTR BEST)
MAN THERE ARE SCENES IN LOTR FILMS BETTER THAN HARRY POTTER....SCENES FFS
BATTLE OF THE PALLENOR(I DONT KNOW HOW TO SPELL IT) FIELDS IS BETTER THAN ALL THE HARRY POTTER MOVIES PUT TOGETHER AND tHATS JUST ONE SCENE HAHAHAHA U GOT NO CHANCE POTTER...
ive been into fantasy ever since i played warhammer which i loved (which is based on lotr)
at the age of 6.
when i saw fellowshiip of the ring like 15 years later all that myth n fantasy i loved as a kid all came floodin back into my imagination and i loved it,films are spot on and quality too
but i never been big on films...just da lotr films

LOTR IS FAR SUPERIOR THAN HAIRY POTHEAD..
LOTR HAS TURDS WITH MORE DEPTH N STORY THAN POTTER.HAHAHAHHHAHHA

HARRY POTTER FILMS=LMAO I PREFER THE NEVER ENDING STORY(LOL THEY ARE BAD)

THE ORIGINAL BEASTMASTER MOVIE FROM 1981 OWNS POTTER FFS...DONT U DARE MAKE FANTASY OUT TO BE LIKE POKEMON POTTER OR I WILL BIATCH SLAP U

OW LOOK THERES A GIANT SNAKE THAT LOOKS LIKE A COMPLETE CUN£

nuff said...

Posted by: jonny at December 27, 2004 04:48 AM

Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings

Comments