The series now has the power to deserve comparison to The Lord of the Rings.
Jul 22 - 02:35 PM
Aaaaaah.... no !
Jul 22 - 08:43 PM
It does deserve to be compared to the Lord of the Rings! However, it would lose.
Jul 22 - 09:26 PM
No comparison. LOTR is epic and incorporates a rich moral and social vision, with a great backstory. HP is about friendship and courage, and the plots are full of holes.
Jul 22 - 10:12 PM
Can you explain the plot holes please?
Jul 22 - 10:38 PM
The books have no plot holes but the movie did becuase it didn't explain things, for instant all of the sudden Harry is sorry for Lupin's son when be for his son is never even mentioned or even that tonks was pregnant. Just little things like that. And the movie missed the beautiful perfection of Potter lore. That's one reason why the Lord of the Rings films were much better.
Jul 31 - 08:17 PM
The books have even more holes than the movies. Only they are not as brutally obvious (well, mostly) that the movies' ones. The movies have less since they work with about 1/10th of the books' material. I can list hundreds of holes in the books. Although to be fair that Draco hug at the end overshadows all books' holes with its utmost stupidity.
Aug 27 - 10:03 AM
masame shoryu a
Not at all
Jul 23 - 07:47 AM
I love Harry Potter, however it's really no comparison to the wealth and grandeur of the Lord of the Rings
Jul 23 - 11:34 AM
Jul 23 - 05:44 PM
No. This film is pretty amazing, but The Lord of the Rings movies are so well-made and masterfully told. I hope The Hobbit prequels can continue the mastery.
Jul 24 - 10:22 AM
I'm not saying Harry Potter is better than Lord of the Rings, I'm not saying that the films are better put-together, but as a series it DOES deserve the comparison. I mean, you have 7 (technically 8) movies, all of them at least good, and you've kept the majority of the same cast throughout. That's absolutely amazing.
Jul 24 - 07:25 PM
Sorry Arda has a much richer history/story than Harry Potter.
Jul 24 - 09:43 PM
Nope, thats like comparing space balls to star wars
Jul 25 - 01:24 AM
A little harsh... but so true, only becuase the Lord of the Rings reached such a hieght of greatness. the gap is equally as big though.
Jul 31 - 08:18 PM
Oh Jeff you are a funny bugger. This was a joke wasn't it, or am I missing something...
Jul 25 - 04:56 AM
I understand people liking the lord of the rings trilogy (they are good movies) but americans put the trilogy on a pedestal that i really dont get....for me harry potter movies are much better than lord of the rings ones...but that doesnt mean i dont enjoy both. And i do think harry potter has the power to deserve comparison to the lord of the rings, in fact its better.
Jul 25 - 03:03 PM
I'm not going justify why LOTR is superior to HP, as you a fully entitled to you opinion. What I don't agree with is your narrow perspective on who as you put it "put LOTR on a pedestal". There is a whole world of people out there that, not just Americans, rated the movie very highly and it seems you think that we conform to what the american population consensus has to say. That is just plain idiotic!!
Jul 25 - 05:33 PM
I Am The Vast UNIVERSE I Am The Vast UNIVERSE
Well a majority of society can't think for themselves half the time so this isn't completely false their is some truth in it.
Jul 31 - 09:45 PM
that's just insulting
Jul 25 - 06:39 PM
No it doesnt. Lord of the Rings is on another universe from Harry Potter, and a much better one at that.
Jul 26 - 07:21 AM
As a child i was never able to get into the Lord of the Rings books. I read half of the Hobbit and could not go on because of how draining it is. Whereas harry potter i couldn't put down possibly because i could relate to the characters more and the like.
There is no doubt that the LOTR movies are better quality than the potter movies but the moviemakers had more to work with than the potter series which is esentially about 3 young kids coming of age. The LOTR series is all out war and the filmakers had more to work with.
Jul 27 - 12:38 AM
lord of the rings doesnt compare to harry potter, why doesnt frodo just fly one of the eagles to mordor in the very beginning of the first movie?
Jul 28 - 02:28 AM
Clearly you haven't read the books. While the movies don't really delve into this in as much detail, in the books Sauron was actually quite adept at figuring out where the ring was headed, and how to close in on it. The pivotal moment was when the army of men and elves chose to attack Mordor to distract Sauron--that was a huge change in strategy for them. If he'd hopped on the eagle in the beginning the 9 would have ridden their dragons and killed him, and the sago would have been more like a small novella, at best.
Jul 28 - 10:02 PM
your a dum ass.PERIOD.A.DUM ASS.The eagles only come at the brink of human need and as was stated the Nazgul would have found and PWND the shit out of him if he were to try your idea.The king of the eagles thinks for himself hes not a pet or anything...
Aug 8 - 04:34 AM
Someone watched 'How LOTR should have ended' ;)
Aug 19 - 04:05 PM
Choong Jing Lee
because the eagles are a symbolism of the gods and Frodo and the fellowship was only mortal? take it like in this world, god wouldn't help u with the hardship unless there is a DIRECT NEED to help. lotr is a struggle to get the ring to the volcanoe without godly help, which makes it a masterpiece.
if you know about lotr history, you will know that at the first age the gods supposedly drowned everyone to kill the dark lord.
Nov 6 - 10:03 PM
i get it, you made a joke
Jul 28 - 07:58 PM