Top 10 Reasons Why The Lord of the Rings is Better Than Harry Potter
I like both Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, but Lord of the Rings is much better.
This is my personal opinion, so please don't take it too seriously. Any other reasons are welcome!
-
It has a deeper meaning
The Lord of the Rings definitely has a deeper meaning than Harry Potter. The characters are very well-developed in LOTR, and the main lesson from the movies is to keep trying no matter how hard it gets or what stands in your way. Frodo and Sam knew that they would not survive their nearly impossible mission, but at the very brink of death, they kept on trying and succeeded.
While watching Harry Potter, I often think, When is this gonna be over? But while watching Rings, I am very satisfied and engaged in the movie. One thing LOTR does very well is playing with your emotions. Seriously, I almost cried seeing Frodo leaving Sam and Middle Earth after all they went through together. LOTR is awesome!
-
It is Christian
Gandalf the Gray (and White) represents the Resurrection, but more importantly, he represents the third person of the Trinity, The Word, who exists outside of time.
Frodo Baggins represents the Sacrifice (the Crucifixion), the journey which begins in sleepy, out-of-the-way Nazareth and ends on the slopes of Golgotha.
Aragorn, son of Arathorn, represents the King, the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom.
There are so many themes that are even indirectly Christian. There's a degenerative universe going on. In The Silmarillion, there was a theme that their only hope lay with the Gods, selflessness, and even the most despicable of characters (Gollum) can earn redemption.
-
It doesn't rely heavily on magic
If Frodo and Sam want to get up a mountain, they walk. Simple. No teleporting, just do it the old-fashioned way. Also, I think that magic is a huge distraction for both reader and writer because the reader is always thinking, couldn't they just do that with magic? And the writer always has to make up reasons that they can't do stuff with magic.
Frodo's mission is very hard. No blasting obstacles out of the way, teleporting, or immobilizing enemies - just lots of walking, climbing, and running.
At first, I was really excited about the magic in Harry Potter, but it's so common that it loses its depth. The magic in LOTR is more awe-inspiring and is only used by characters when they truly need it.
-
It comes with a backdrop of thousands of years of history and is rich in fully developed languages
Tolkien devoted a significant portion of his life to developing the world of LOTR. It is a man's life's work. If vague references are made to facts throughout a series of children's books, it won't build up as big a universe as a dense series of adult books alongside a large book designed to build up the world Tolkien's works take place in, and a hefty amount of notes written on the legendarium.
Absolutely. I always enjoy reading the appendices at the end of Return of the King to learn all about the history of Middle-earth. The Tolkien Bestiary also does this, even listing classic characters like Sauron as god-like!
-
Harry Potter copied The Lord of the Rings
Boy characters, both chosen for super difficult tasks, both carry incredibly powerful magical items - Frodo the ring and Harry a fragment of Voldemort - and both have old men helping them.
Harry Potter was inspired by Lord of the Rings. It wasn't a complete copy of it, but it was definitely inspired by it.
Many fantasy writers have attempted (perhaps unintentionally) to mimic the greatness Tolkien achieved. However, HP is one of the better imitations. Still, LOTR kicks HP's arse any day.
-
The Lord of the Rings makes sense, Harry Potter is just random magic stuff
LOTR is a sub-creation under an overarching creation by God. HP is just random plot meandering, inventing things along the way.
When the Fellowship destroys the ring, it feels earned because you saw them fighting, struggling, and suffering all to get to Mount Doom. With Harry, I'm just wondering, why don't they teleport or Avada Kedavra?
You must read the full books, and you will know LOTR is the most realistic fantasy series of all time.
-
The characters don't do evil to achieve their goals
In Lord of the Rings, wrongdoers are punished. The characters choose the nobler path. The message in Harry Potter seems to be that as long as the characters are against Voldemort, they can do anything they want, including illegal spells that ought to land them in jail for the rest of their lives.
-
The movie inspires people to do good and fight against evil
Well, to be fair, Harry Potter just literally says there's a bad guy, and you can do simply anything to stop him.
Lord of the Rings is more serious and deeper, and there's always that theme of good versus evil. Everyone made mistakes and had problems, but they fought to keep on the right path, and look what they achieved.
In Harry Potter, they have to do wrong to fight against evil. In the real world, you never do illegal stuff and remain the "good guy."
In LotR, all the evil characters are evil, and all the good characters are good. Of course, everyone makes mistakes, so please don't go blaming Pippin for being in league with the orcs.
-
The Nazgûl are cooler than the Death Eaters
The Nazgûl, especially the Witch-king, completely undermine the element of psychological warfare that anything in Harry Potter has. The lieutenant reveal in the movies for the two is also vastly different. Bellatrix's first appearance is so tame and unsatisfying compared to the narrated scene where the Witch-king puts on his armor.
Every time I see even one Nazgûl, I am filled with fear, dread, and worry for Frodo and the Fellowship. Every time I see Death Eaters, I think, "Oh, it's these guys." They aren't scary. They're just glorified ghost prison guards who can't do their jobs.
-
Sauron is a better villain than Voldemort
Sauron is so cool. He has a massive, terrifying fortress probably as tall as the Burj Khalifa. What does Voldemort have? The Riddle House. Everything Voldemort has, Sauron has ten times better. The threat of Sauron also seems more real. In Harry Potter, it always seems that Voldemort's evil and danger are a bit forced. You can find a million plot holes in ways he could still be defeated even if Harry fails, and even more things the characters should do to beat him if he is so dangerous. Voldemort does have more character, though.
Ok, I mean, since he is the second Dark Lord, it makes sense, but I never understood why Shelob was called a demon but not him or his master Morgoth.
Back on track, I always liked how the books chose to portray their villains as corrupted rather than just a salty orphan like in Harry Potter. I like them both, but Lord of the Rings has always been better.
-
?
It is intended for a larger age range
I like how Merlin(the tv show) can be watched by a wide age range as well. If it was released today, it would probably be more like Game of Thrones and try to be shocking. At the same time I also see people praise things for being targeted to exclusively older audiences and edgier. Things that are suitable for children are often looked down upon and franchises get uncomfortable edgy adult reboots made to "grow up with the ("OG") audience" who grew up watching and/or playing something(is that gatekeeping?), but not every adult wants to watch and/or play something with graphic gory violence, sexuality, and characters being absolutely disgusting and creepy to each other, that's what the real world does. It makes an escape.
-
?
It has more inseparable friendships
Such as Frodo and Sam, Gimli, Legolas, and Aragorn. Merry and Pippin also became good friends with Boromir.
The Gray Havens scene really displayed Frodo and Sam's friendship. Sam couldn't believe that Frodo was going to leave.
-
Harry can be a jerk
Hell yes, I agree with this! Especially Harry in The Order of the Phoenix. He was constantly shouting and yelling at his friends in Grimmauld Place. He's also very moody and a little too-good for his age, which makes him seem too mature and a bit fake.
He doesn't have a good sense of humor and certainly doesn't have enough manners (no offense, it's the truth) as he likes to shout or be angry at his mentor and teachers. In the last chapter of Order of the Phoenix, Harry shouted at Dumbledore, but come on, Harry shouts at anyone he thinks deserves it. He's just a kid, for the love of God. Stop yelling!
Harry gets angry at little things and yells at his closest friends. Frodo was only a jerk because he was under the influence of the Ring.
-
It's more entertaining
100 PERCENT. Lord of the Rings is my favorite trilogy of all time, literally my life. My cousin first introduced us to the place I've left my heart in, Middle Earth. At first, we didn't want to watch it. He had shown us Harry Potter previously, and just by watching the first movie, we still hated it.
You might say that watching it out of free will could change a person's view. Well, I didn't want to watch LOTR at all, but I still ended up loving it. That's how awesome it is. My mother checked the guides and said, "Yeah, everyone says it's awesome, put it on." Needless to say, since that day, I've been hooked.
-
It's darker
-
It is a physical journey
Totally! The Harry Potter characters use magic for too many things. They're lazy and arrogant, and by the fifth book, all the characters would be too lazy, overweight, and unfit to do anything more than a Zoom call. Maybe the less food and no magic of the Dursleys would be a good wake-up call for Harry after a year at Hogwarts.
But with Frodo, Sam, and the rest of the fellowship, you feel their pain and exhaustion. You sympathize with them and honor their fight in a way you can't with a guy in warm robes eating off a feast table by a roaring fire. That does make you feel cozy reading before bed, though.
Frodo has to actually walk to his destination, over rocks, marshes, mountains, and rivers. All Harry does each year is go to school and maybe to some other places on field trips, and the dangers come to him.
-
The language is grander
Yes! Tolkien's prose is absolutely beautiful, and the imagery is spectacular! Whereas in HP, a fifth grader can understand the language. You actually have to try in LOTR. There are no cultural references or crude humor, making it a classic rather than just a wildly famous bestseller.
Don't get me wrong, HP has changed my life, and I love it, but it's more "fun," and you don't even notice how shallow it really is until you actually read LOTR. LOTR FOR THE WIN!
True, Harry Potter is easier to understand, but once you can make sense of Tolkien's language, it has great, deep meaning that doesn't grow old.
-
It has cooler species
Both have men, but does Harry Potter have anything as cool as a Balrog? And the creatures that are similar, like dragons, are crappier than in LOTR.
-
It has better morals
-
The Lord of the Rings' legacy still continues to this day while Harry Potter's legacy is dying
Tolkien gave us a new mythos to understand ourselves and our world.
I agree. Gandalf is basically a demigod. What's Dumbledore? Oh yeah, a gay old dude.
-
The characters are on attack mode, not defense mode
The Lord of the Rings characters take the initiative to start the quest to Mordor. In Harry Potter, the dangers just follow Harry around.
-
Éowyn is better than Hermione
Eowyn is better than Hermione because of her fight. She picks up a sword and defeats the greatest evil sidekick. Hermione just says words and moves her wand.
Eowyn is a very empowering female character, partly because she manages to destroy the Nazgûl leader. Basic old feminism but in a more badass style.
In the book at least, Eowyn knows she's probably going to die but still defends her uncle.
-
It has more powerful enemies
So true. Even apart from Sauron and the Nazgûl, in the history and in the current story, every monster or opponent they meet or explain is awesome, not just a scruffy racist person.
Voldemort: a serial killer with no nose who couldn't kill a baby and failed to take over a high school.
Sauron/Morgoth: Literal gods who have brought great evil and terror to Middle-earth for millennia.
Not really fair lol. Tolkien took a ton of time to develop his characters and world. The biggest bad of Middle-earth is Melkor/Morgoth, the second most powerful being besides Eru, who's like God. He is the greatest of the Ainur. Even Sauron was a servant to him!
-
It has better battles
I love to roast Potterheads with this. The Harry Potter characters and superfans seem so proud of their 'wizarding war.' Maybe the first one was more impressive, but the second wizarding war isn't a war. It's a gang fight.
The conflicts in LOTR are very much wars, with battles in every region of Middle Earth, each involving thousands upon thousands. Even the last fight in the Shire involves about 500-700 combatants in total.
The wizarding wars are just spam spells. The battles in LOTR have great hope and despair. It feels like our heroes are actually in danger and are making a great stand against this primordial evil.
-
It's shorter
-
It was the first of its kind
-
Gandalf is more awesome than Dumbledore
Gandalf is more angel than wizard.