Top 10 Reasons Lord of the Rings is Better Than Harry PotterI 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!
I used to be interested in Harry Potter yet never finished the whole trilogy, but is that really necessary? LOTR on the other hand, I have only seen some of it (will eventually watch the trilogy) and can already tell it's a far more grander, sophisticated life changing masterpiece. Rest in Peace Tolkien
The Lord of the Rings totally has deeper meaning than harry potter. The characters are very well developed in LOTR, and the main lesson from the movies is keep on trying no matter how hard or what gets 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 am thinking 'when is this gonna be over', but while watching Rings I am very satisfied and into the movie. One thing LOTR does very well is plays with your emotions. Seriously, I almost cried seeing Frodo leaving Sam and Middle Earth after all they went through together. LOTR is awesome!
In Lord Of The Rings, good triumphs over evil, because evil cannot comprehend good: Sauron doesn't understand Good's motivations, so it doesn't even occur to him that they may try to destroy the Ring. In Harry Potter, good triumphs over evil because love is more powerful. So it's pretty clear that Lord Of The Rings has deeper meanings.
There is very little character development in Harry Potter. Harry learns about magic and then for the rest of it he goes with the flow, and just yells at his friends for no reason. Frodo, has inner conflicts but manages to go along on his mission. Sam can defeat a giant spider, and Ron can defeat a cup. LOTR also has better themes than death.
-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.
Honestly, if the books were written by a Muslim guy you would have not liked it! I am not religious, but there are other religions that also have those same pillars.
Tolkien draws lots of parallels to the Christian faith. Read 'The Magical Worlds of The Lord of the Rings'.
At first I was really excited about the magic in Harry potter, but it's so common that it losses its depth. The magic in LOTR is more awe-inspiring and is only used by characters when they really need to.
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.
Plus, LOTR's magic system has an actually fleshed out origin story in The Silmarillion on how the magic of Middle-Earth came to existence, something that HP lacks.
The lore and depth of Lord of the Rings makes it so much fun, in HP I was constantly searching for something more and the vague references to wizarding history were treated too much as jokes.
Tolkien devoted a significant portion of time over 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 then it won't build up as big a universe than 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!
Unlike Hogwarts, Tolkien gave Middle Earth a history spanning many 'ages' and many millenniums. Accompanying this history are several languanges (yes, full languages) that help to give validity and reality to the universe.
Harry Potter is so overrated! Tolkien poured his life's work into creating his world, he worked on it in the trenches while fighting world war I at some points! He made its language as a child, he made it his entire life. LoTR sets the standard for all fantasy series, (I mean the books), and I don't think that anything, (except wheel of time, maybe), compares to the full majesty and glory of middle earth.
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.
So many fantasy writers have attempted (perhaps unintentionally) to mimic the greatness Tolkien achieved. However, HP is one of the better imitations. Still, however, LOTR kicks HP arse any day
LOTR is a sub-creation under an overarching creation by God. HP is just random plot meandering, inventing things along the way...
"Random magic stuff"
Have you even read a single word out of Harry Potter?
Your must read full books and you will be know LOTR is the most realistic fantasy series of all time
In Lord of the Rings, wrongdoers are punished. The characters choose the nobler path. The message in Harry Potter seems to be that so 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.
Don't evil witches ride on brooms?
Hold on, Pippin was never in league with the orcs! Also, the big villain Sauron in LOTR, gives the book a huge advantage. It doesn't make you stop to think, "Well hey, you shouldn't have hurt the big faming eyeball. It was only an immortal wrath of a being, captain of the god of death, just trying to rule and terrorize the world! " So you don't really care that hundreds of orcs were killed. Whereas in Harry Potter, the Death Eaters are confused and mislead lunatics, but are in fact humans, and have their own lives. And Voldemort is a raving mad orphan boy that nobody really likes, so yeah, advantage to LOTR. Also, I think that Harry Potter should not have been written for kids, like come on. Is it really smart to have nine year olds learning about teenage social problems, serial killers, and mass murderers without noses? Real good lesson for little kids. I mean, not to mention the Lord of the Rings movies were way, way better.
In Harry Potter, they have to do wrong to fight against evil, but 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.
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, it's more serious and deeper, and there's always that thing about good vs evil. Everyone made mistakes, had problems, but they fought to keep on the right path, and look what they achieved.
Yeah, Harry Potter inspires people to get revenge on people who have wronged them. Stellar lesson for kids.
The Nazgul, especially the witch king, so undermine the element of psychological warfare that anything in harry potter has. The lieutenant reveal in the movies for the two, Bellatrix's first appearance is so tame and unsatisfying compared to the narrated scene where the witch king puts on his armour.
The Nazgûl are invisible, speak in whispery voices and ride dragon-like creatures. And they're only nine of them. The Death Eaters are still human and although they're dangerous, they're not terrifying. Also, the Death Eaters follow Voldemort's orders all the time, while the Nazgûl do things on their own.
Oh yeah. The Nazgul (my computer won't let me do the line above the "u") are sooo awesome! They're also scary beyond belief. If I saw a Death Eater coming after me, I'd run as fast as I can. But if I saw the Nazgul coming after me, I'd shoot myself in the head, because there is no way you're getting out alive after that.
When you have an entire lost kingdom's most powerful lords on your side, what do a few power hungry snobs have against you.
Sauron is so cool. He has a massive, terrifying fortress probably as tall as the Burj Kalifa. 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 is a bit forced and 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 as 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 choose to portray their villains as corrupted and not just some salty orphan like Harry Potter. I like them both but Lord of the Rings has always been better
Sauron is the dark lord of evil, who in the first age crafted rings to take over the minds of humans and use them as his slaves. He controls an army of thousands and thousands of orcs. His spirit is still alive though his body died and he lives in mt doom.
Voldermort is some guy without a nose
Sauron is one of the greatest villains of all time. Everything about him is awesome (except the fact that he's lazy). My favorite part about Voldemort is that he has no nose, like King Hippo, but that's about it.
Hell yes I agree with this! Especially Harry in The order of the phoenix, he was like constantly shouting and yelling at his friends in Grimmauld Place. He's also very moody and a little 'too-good' for his age, which means he's too mature and a little 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 being angry at his mentor and teachers. In the last chapter in Order of the phoenix, Harry shouted at Dumbledore but come off it, Harry shouts at anyone he think deserves it. He's just a kid, for the love of God. Stop yelling!
Harry isn't jerk! He just can be angry sometimes because for example in the order of the phoenix Voldemort is inside Harry's mind and that is very good reason to be angry.
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.
Frodo is at least more connecting and relatable than Harry.
100 PERCENT. Lord of the Rings is my favorite trilogy of all time, like, literally my life. My cousin first introduced us to the place I've left my heart in, Middle Earth. At first we didn't wanna watch it. You see, he'd shown us Harry Potter previously and just by watching the first movie, we still hated it. But you might say that it could change a person's view on the movie if they watched it out of free will and not being forced. Well. I didn't WANT to watch LOTR. Not at all. But I still ended up loving it. That's how awesome it is. And my mother checked the guides and was like, "Yeah everyone says it's awesome, put it on"
And, needless to say, since that day, I've been hooked.
No essay for this, but it's true.
Totally! The Harry Potter Characters use magic for too many things, they're lazy and arrogant and I feel that by the fifth book, all the characters would be too lazy, overweight and not fit enough to do anything more than a zoom call. Maybe the less food and no magic of the Dursley's would be a good wake up call for Harry after a year of Hogwarts. But with Frodo, Sam and the rest of the fellowship, you feel their pain, their tire and you sympathise with them and honour 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 cosy 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 Lord Of The Rings actually involves an exploration into the scope and mythology of Middle-Earth. Harry Potter, unfortunately, involves being stuck in a school for most of the time.
I agree with this one.
This might be my favourite part of he LOTR, you get in touch with the world and the times, the words flow over you like a song and you feel proud when you finish a book.
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, and 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 is very emotional the farther you go and I actually almost cried when Boromir died.
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.
Tolkien gave us a new mythos to understand ourselves and our world.
I agree Gandalf is basically a demi-god what's Dumbledore?Oh yeah a gay old dude.
The Lord of the Rings characters take the initiative to start the quest to Mordor. In Harry Potter the dangers just follow Harry around.
Eowyn is a very very empowering female character, partly how she manages to destroy the Nazgul leader. Basic old feminism but in a more badass style.
Eowyn is better than Hermione because of her fight. She picks a sword and defeat the greatest evil sidekick. And Hermione just says words and moves her wand.
In the book at least eowyn knows she's probably going to die but still defends her uncle
Eowyn, Arwen, and Galadriel are way more empowering female characters than Hermione
So true, even apart from Sauron and the Nazgul, in the history and in the current story, every monster or opponent they meet or is explained is awesome not just a scruffy racist person.
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!
The length of the movie does not define the quality of it.
I love to roast potter heads with this.
The harry potter characters and super fans seem so proud of their 'wizarding war' and maybe the first one was more impressive but the second wizarding war isn't a war, it's a gang fight. But the conflicts in LOTR are very much wars, battles in every region of middle Earth, each thousands upon thousands. Even the last fight in the shire is about 500-700 combatants in total.
Tons of people fight. Only 5 or less people fight in harry potter
Lott made fantasy look cool.
Gandalf is more angel than wizard.