Harry Potter Films VS The Lord Of The Rings Films

Harry Potter or Lord Of The Rings?

  • Lord Of The Rings

    Votes: 15 60.0%

  • Harry Potter

    Votes: 10 40.0%
  • Total voters
    25
C

Cyber Jet

Something for nothing
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
3,064
Reaction score
4
Both of these are a series of films based of a series of novels. They are both notable for being extremely Successful and also for sticking pretty close to the books they where based off.

In one corner we have The Lord Of The Rings trilogy based off the three-volume book by J. R. R. Tolkien. In the other we have the 7 Harry Potter films (with a 8th being made) based off the series written by J. K. Rowling.

But which do you think is better?

I'm voting for The Lord Of The Rings because I liked the books better then the Harry Potter books (all thought both are extremely good) and also I liked the movies better too.
 
Considering the word "Films" in the title, I vote Harry Potter, as I felt the Harry Potter movies were much better handled than the Lord of the Rings movies. Take into account that I didn't read the Harry Potter books in English yet, and I've read the Lord of the Rings books a long time ago. But still, they left out some parts I considered very important in the books, and changed some stuff that I thought shouldn't have been changed, which is why I vote Harry Potter.
 
Both are big faves of mine and maybe Harry Potter is an even bigger one, consdiering I was one of the many that practically grew up with the series but if you ask me, when it comes to movies LoTR did it better.
 
Lord of the Rings is much to long to sit through. I haven't read the books, but I have read the Harry Potter ones.
Speaking, purely of the films I can definitely say Harry Potter is my favorite. I'm not usually into anything like either of those concepts,
but Harry Potter is so diverse and so much happens. Lord of the Rings was boring to watch in comparison, and there were holes in the story.
 
Both are based on very good series of books, and both have movie versions that were handled very well. I'd say that Harry Potter was a great series to grow up with, as the characters seem to be getting older as we do, while at the same time, it becomes more easy to understand and appreciate the Lord of the Rings series, which don't spoon-feed you the plot like most other movies. It may just depend on your age group as to which one you prefer.

For me, though, I think that the Lord of the Rings films handled themselves better, in the long run. They managed to cut enough material from their volume to fit into a (long) film while keeping true to the feel and scope of their world - the Harry Potter series began to trip over that about halfway through its run.
 
This was an easy one. While I like the Lord of the Rings films at least a decent amount, I've never quite found myself drawn into them in the same way I was with the books. Meanwhile, the Harry Potter films get my attention just as much. This is in part because I just think it's a better series, no offense to Tolkein fans, but mainly because where the LotR films hold to the books very strongly except in some weird places, Harry Potter isn't afraid to make some changes, consolidate things, and overall create its own version of the narrative as opposed to being just the movie of the book. Now, in some cases that's not a good thing (I'm looking at you Goblet of Fire and your horrid pacing) but for the most part it works out just fine.
 
Lord of the Rings included several changes in the plot that were better. Take Faramir. In the books he is unaffected by the ring but in the films he is tempted and is turned into an obstacle which made him a much more complex character. Or the Council of Elrond part. In the book, that chapeter is huge and all of the back story is explained in that chapeter alone. If it were adapted scene by scene, it would have been a nightmare. Instead, they s[lit the backstory and made a prologue and shortened the chapter and kept only that was which was absolutely neccessary.

The Harry Potter movies either stick too close to the source material or deviate too much.
 
Harry Potter, but I'm rather biased since I'm a diehard Harry Potter fan but have never read the LOTR books or seen the movies. Perhaps if I had seen the LOTR movies I would feel differently, but for now I'll say Harry Potter just because I'm such a big fan.
 
If by Harry Potter you mean numbers 3 and 7 sure! If not, LoTR.
 
This is a hard question :/

I chose Harry Potter, just because I grew up with it more or less, and the books are more fun to read (in my opinion)
 
Chromas said:
For me, though, I think that the Lord of the Rings films handled themselves better, in the long run. They managed to cut enough material from their volume to fit into a (long) film while keeping true to the feel and scope of their world - the Harry Potter series began to trip over that about halfway through its run.
Click to expand...

I think the LOTR movie sucked. I didn't enjoy them at all. And the only HP movie that was moderately bad of Goblet of Fire. I fully enjoyed the other six. So yea, Harry Potter for me.
 
Lord of the Rings.
Because while I like all the Harry Potter books, the films are utter garbage.
LotR on the other hand made 3 fantastic film-adaptions. And it's just better literature IMO.
Just think of everything that Tolkien created in his works. (Including several languages)
To me, they are just on a whole other level compared to the HP-series.
 
Last edited:
I chose LoTR because it is epic and they really left out some good parts of some Harry Potter movies like Half-Blood Prince.
 
Please note: The thread is from 15 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom