Why do people compare Harry Potter with LOTR?
79242
Not similar at all?  I suppose it depends on how you classify something, or how 'similar' something needs to be, to be described as 'similar' to something else.\n\nBoth movie series are fiction.  Both are fantasy and adventure, with a certain amount of comedy and drama.  Both contain magic, spells, wizards, English actors, a large spider, modes of transport that fly...\n\nIf you look, there are lots of similarities.  There are differences too of course, which I suspect is where you'd argue that the two movies are not alike.\n\nWhy not tell us why you feel they're not similar?
117077
Heyyy who cares??? I love Harry Potter.\nThe Harry potter series are deliciously suspensful, with wonderful plot twists, so many characters- some we love, some we hate, some we suspect. It includes familiar student concerns like homeworks, grades, hateful professors, fierceful rivalry, blush-inducing crushes. Harry has been growing and so have I!\n\nThe movies are good too. Though i would not compare them with the books! The directors have done a good job, though we always feel the book has been reduced to a large extent. The trio (Dan, Emma, Rupert) are more than perfect for their roles. And they hav made every teenage fan go 'gaga'.\n\nAnyone out there who hates Harry Potter, without  having read the book or seen the movie : "Hell to them"
170153
star wars fans arenot nreds.Star Trekkers and harry potter fans are.Lotr and star wars are the same,nerd or geekless.
425832
I actually think, for some mysterious reason, that the fans and the experiences of the people making the movie impressed and enthused me more than the movies themselves.  \n\nHowever, I highly enjoyed watching the movies and there were many moments when I think Jackson surpassed Tolkien in scene representation (eg. The Breaking of the Fellowship).  \n\nOn the other hand, the complexity of the story and characters could never be transferred onto film.  Film is a very different medium for artistic portrayal than a book.  In books you can be as in-depth as you like; the reader can take their time in absorbing everything. In a 2-3 hour movie you cannot do that.  \n\nYou need to make choices of where you want the story to go and Jackson's writing team had to do that.  So there was no Scouring of the Shire, not enough of Faramir and Eowyn, or enough Merry & Pippin etc.   That's why you did not get Bombadil.  (No real loss in my opinion.  Can you imagine this hippy getting the four hobbits to strip naked and dance around on the grass in the movie??? (Well I wouldn't mind seeing Billy and Dom do this).) \n\nThe reason they needed to change Faramir's character was that they had built the Ring as a character that was very dangerous and influential to humans, and if Faramir behaved like he did in the book, where he had no interest in the Ring, that would crush the sinister character of the Ring.\n\nIn other scenes, I was disappointed in 'brushing over' some scenes, like the forming of the Fellowship at the Council of Elrond.  And what seemed to be like a tv cartoon portrayal of the "bad guys", esp the third movie the main orc with the bad skin, with a voice like the baddie in Inspector Gadget.  A bit weak.  Also, it felt quite 'tired' to show endless battles without effectively showing the consquences of war at a human level.\n\nI think Jackson did an overall good job in trying to please fans of the books and movie-goers in general.  I personally would like to have seen something more 'absorbing' like an Akira Kurosawa-type film.  But that's me.
237512
i cannot not compare them.  i am a big fan of both of the sagas.  star wars is a classic and will always be a classic.  lord of the rings is on its way to being one.
190073
LOTR is the best. Seriously, movies are there to transport people to a whole new world, take you out of reality, and LOTR does just that while giving us emotionally connect able characters. Die Hard wasn't bad but in all three movies it was the exact same thing over and over, thoughtless carnage and mayhem, while LOTR takes some thinking. But you definitely do have to be in the mood for LOTR. But still, it is THE best.
70787
Lord of the Rings is one of J.R.R Tolkin's stories about a fantasy land named Middle East with lots of races, Humans, Elves(Tolkin Elves are tall, beautiful and very fairy), Dwarves, Ents, Orcs and Hobbits.\nThis is the story of Dark Lord Sauron who forged lots of magical rings with a group of elves for all the races consist of human, elves and dwarves and a special one for himself which he put some of his corrupted magical power in it.\nSauron was defeated many years ago but his ring wasn't devastated so he didn't vanished. His ring can only be destroyed in the fire where it forged, mount doom in the middle of Sauron land.\nRing took a very strange trip and 2000 years later found by a Hobbit(a race which was created by author of books).\nIn the meantime Sauron became strong again(he was from a heavenly race who lives forever) and came back to his old land. He started a search for the ring by his heinous troops.\nAt the same time a wizard known as Gandalf found that ring  hobbit found is the one ring. A council of high elves, wizards, men and dwarves decided to send the ring to mount Doom to destroy it while all Sauron army started a massive invade to mens land. They selected Frodo the Hobbit to do this mission.\nThis is where the story begins. Story contains lots of beautiful points about power and corruption , good and bad ,trust and betray and nature and love.\nMovies are great, just watch them.\nAlso books are a classic masterpiece with lots of poems and more which wasn't at the movies.
911045
It's pretty hard to compare and contrast anything if you haven't read it, so I would suggest you read Midsummer Night's Dream, and get quotes that have something to do with your argument, instead of just soliciting any old quotes.
468697
I love books four and six the most; however I HATE the movies. Anyone who has read the books should know that those movies are an insult to the Harry Potter series, and for the good of humanity shoul not be viewed by anyone.
56605
This is another of those many asked questions, and I think "thequeen.." has a point. The two, though containing a similar theme of magic, are more like comparing an apple to an orange, just because they are both fruit.\nI think I enjoyed the HP series because I was already a rabid Tolkien fan, but even considering that- I started out a little prejudiced, and felt that JKR had something to prove to me. Well she got me hooked and I've enjoyed her works.\nJRRT is from a different time and a different society. A master at languages, he had the background to build a literary masterpiece. Plus he was a pioneer in the mythological/scifi trilogy genre.\nJKR has had the benefit of growing up with a lot of authors who let their imaginations run rampant. And she produced, on her first try, a best-seller.\n\nFor me, it's just enjoy them both. Embrace the imagination it inspires in you.
38576
Well... Same pinch... I love Harry Potter.\nThe Harry potter series are deliciously suspensful, with wonderful plot twists, so many characters- some we love, some we hate, some we suspect. It includes familiar student concerns like homeworks, grades,  hateful professors, fierceful rivalry, blush-inducing crushes. Harry has been growing and so have I!\n\nThe movies are good too. Though i would not compare them with the books! The dirctors have done a good job, though we always feel the book has been reduced to a large extent. The trio (Dan, Emma, Rupert) are more than perfect for their roles. And they hav made every teenage fan go 'gaga'.
1100777
In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, the MAIN reason I love the Harry Potter chronicles is because they teach friendship, love, loyalty, compassion, trust and belief in yourself and your abilities. The "witchcraft" or "wizardry" is a backdrop for the storyline to give them an element of the mystic and unexplainable in our lives, and simply to make them fun to read. I am proud to buy Harry Potter movies and books for my son because he "feels" the goodness of the storylines and what they teach him about people and about life.
780227
It's doubtful, but then, Tolkien _was_ a catholic, so one can never be sure.  If one stretches credulity or is inclined to be anti-semetic (I do neither), one might see a similarity between the orcs and jews.  One of the false accusations hurled for centuries against jews, long before Hitler came along, was that jews killed and ate gentile babies; the cannibalistic behaviour of hook-nosed orcs might have a disgusting undertone to it, but I doubt it.\n\nI myself never saw Tolkien's books as "great literature".  Compared to Tolkien, HP Lovecraft is light reading, and _his_ stories are tedious and wordy.  \n\nTolkien is also partly responsible for his personal fiend - oops, friend - CS Lewis writing that abominable and hateful piece of tripe, "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe".  Even Tolkien himself said it was overdone and poorly written.  The christian "message" in LW&W has all the subtlety of sex in a low budget pornographic movie.\n\nSpeaking of tawdry sex, did you know that JRR Tolkien's eldest son, John Tolkien, was a catholic priest?  Or at least, he was until 2002 when he was convicted of molesting boys.  He's currently in prison, defrocked (and probably deflowered by the other prisoners...).\n\n\n.
916880
from what I've read on wikipedia and other sources, timothy hunter (books of magic) was created BEFORE harry potter, however both Neil Gaiman and J.K. Rowling could have gotten similar inspiration since they are both from the same country. or as wikipedia and the authors respective sites say "...any similarities between the two are largely superficial and most likely reflect the fact that both draw on common archetypes..." (kinda how some american shows/movies play on the token ethnic guy).\n\nthere is also the fact that while they both look the same, the trials and tribulations the characters face are VERY different.
140326
The extended version of a movie includes scenes that were removed for the theatrical version (the version shown in theatres). In the case of the LOTR, I felt that the extended versions were better than the theatrical - the story benefited from the extra storytelling. This isn't true for all movies, though.
693344
I'm really not sure what you're asking: are you saying that Harry Potter is a religion or that the Bible is a work of fiction? How are they even comparable? \n\nI actually think that the Bible should be used in schools, just not as a basis for fact. It is an excellent novel.
876515
Whilst the Harry Potter series is a fantastic read and has 4 relatively good movies, I don't see how this fad could influence generations of people and young kids for 40 plus years. Does it spread the message of love and world peace? Sure it makes kids read again, a tough task at the best of times and worthy of note and just under a billion pounds but influencing several generations of people, musicians and the world? No, certainly not. For The Beatles it wasn't about the money, it was the message, and that message went world wide and has stayed there. I bet The Beatles sold more records than Potter books and though they are both worth millions, The Beatles will be remembered forever.