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!
The Top Ten
You go away from Lord of the Rings feeling you've actually learned something. The characters are faithful and brave. Their acts give you something to think about. Frodo and Sam's friendship is constantly threatened. Even the most comical characters do at least a few things right.
There are many levels and it's by far more complicated than Harry Potter. Shouldn't even be compared.
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.
Lord of the Rings is the best book I have ever read. The Harry Potter books are a ton of fun, really enjoyable, and I love them, but no one will ever beat Tolkien.
-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.
Umm, although I do like LOTR more (and also find Harry Potter overrated), I don't think this has anything to do with it being better... - Misfire
I am a Catholic and this is partly why I'm more connected to LOTR.
Tolkien draws lots of parallels to the Christian faith. Read 'The Magical Worlds of The Lord of the Rings'.
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.
Frodo's mission is very hard. No blasting obstacles out of the way, teleporting or immobilizing enemies. Just lots of walking, climbing and running.
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.
HP is partly about showing off while LOTR has a theme about making the right choices.
Then you could say that Tolkien copied the ancient myths and legends
Harry Potter was inspired by Lord Of The Rings. It wasn't a complete copy of it, but it was definitely inspired by it.
This is actually true. Without Lord of the Rings there would be no Harry Potter.
Giant spider? Dangerous forest?
Tolkein didn't write different books. All of it come together to form thousands of years of history. Last time I checked J.k Rowling didn't create an entire world with different languages for each race of people. that's the difference. LOTR feels real.
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.
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.
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.
This is the stupidest reason I have ever read for LOTR being better than Harry Potter. If fictional characters never do wrong things, then these characters are very poorly written ones.
Don't evil witches ride on brooms?
So your telling me if you had been alive during world war II, and had the ability to sign a petition to kill Hitler,you wouldn't sign it cause murder is wrong?
Millions of people have read the books. The fact that you "read a little bit of a book" and found that it makes no sense proves how ignorant you R. If you read the first few pages of Lord of the Rings would you understand everything? Better yet, would you want to? A good book does not reveal all of itself at once. If it did there would be no reason to read on. You're supposed to want to find out, not just deem it stupid because you don't understand everything yet.
Your must read full books and you will be know LOTR is the most realistic fantasy series of all time
LOTR is a sub-creation under an overarching creation by God. HP is just random plot meandering, inventing things along the way...
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 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.
Death Eaters can be reasoned with but not the Nazgúl since they are unbreakably devoted to Sauron' will. Plus, the Nazgúl technically can't be killed since they're not living nor dead.
Nazgul are scary. Death eaters are not. enough' said
Don't get me wrong I'm a HUGE lotr fan but is one series being "more Christian" a legitimate reason for one to be better? I mean how about the actual story or character development! Things like that
LOTR is much scarier than Harry Potter
I mean Frodo cot stabbed by a Nazgúl, that was scary!
I did'nt get scared in Harry Potter! Sorry, bad English
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 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.
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.
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.
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 basically Middle-Earth's physical incarnation of Lucifer. Do I need more to say?
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 f@*%ing lazy). My favorite part about Voldemort is that he has no nose, like King Hippo, but that's about it.
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.
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.
Yeah. I can't stop reading it! Harry Potter is lame compared to lord of the rings. - Ash_lovesLOTR
5th graders are reading Harry potter, 11th graders are reading LOTR - LegoGeek21
You do realize HP is for young adults right?
It has a deeper meaning and the entire storyline is like another universe itself
In the J.R.R. Tolkien novel series 'the lord of the rings' you get this feeling like you have been transported to another world it is full of mysterious lore and is heavily based on back-story. while as for harry potter it takes place in present time and doesn't have much back-story to it. the feeling of the characters seeming real just isn't there.
Are you confusing Harry Potter with The Worst Witch in fact the whole list is confusing Harry Potter and The Worst Witch.
Yeah, the change of tones is kinda weird to be honest. - Misfire
Nah. All too childish
The Tone-Meter For Harry Potter
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.
LotR: Men, Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Balrogs, Dragons, Uruk-hai, Wizards, Hobbits, Numenoreans, Trolls, Valar, Maiar, Nazgul, Gollum, Goblins.
HP: Men, Dragons, Stupid small elves, goblins
The Lord of the Rings characters take the initiative to start the quest to Mordor. In Harry Potter the dangers just follow Harry around.
In the book at least eowyn knows she's probably going to die but still defends her uncle
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.
The length of the movie does not define the quality of it. - Misfire
The Lord Of The Rings Movies Are Longer In Run Time
Lotr has hopelessly outdated morality, good for its time but now we have moved on
That's totally not true. I'm in fifth grade and I'm still reading Lord of the Rings. And I read Harry Potter in second grade! - Ash_lovesLOTR
I don't agree with this "age" limit. I do admit that The Lord of The Rings was much darker and violent than Harry Potter,
The age limit has nothing to do with the movie being better. - Misfire
In Lord of the Rings, the majority of the action takes place over one year. Harry Potter takes place over seven years. If I were Harry, I wouldn't have been able to relax over the summers.
Well he didn't relax over summers really
I think this makes hp better...
Sam is a better Sidekick because he saves Frodo and carried him up Mount Doom Ron is always scared
He looks just plain dumb
Movie Ron is dumb
Ron is quite dumb.
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! - SpaceHazard
VOLDEMORT CAN"T EVEN TAKE OVER A HIGH SCHOOL. SAROUN MANGES TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD.
Tons of people fight. Only 5 or less people fight in harry potter
Of course, LOTR battles are far more intense, HP is just bland and uninteresting
The Oscars are awards that symbolize how great a film is regarding actors, special effects, story and just how many people liked it.
Oscars don't prove anything, unless you're telling me that Crash is better than Batman Begins
Lott made fantasy look cool.
I don’t cry at much but at the end of Lord of the rings had me hugging my pillow and demolishing a box of tissues.
Tolkien has written 12 books altogether, and apart from the six LotR and Hobbit books, the other six are there for the backstory of middle earth. Harry potter might have London, but to be honest, settings like Mordor and the mines of Moria far outpass that.
Shadow of Mordor and it's sequel Shadow of War have a complex nemesis system that creates a challenge for it's players. While Harry Potter games were just completely based of the movie with no originality or depth. Just plain and simple repetitive wave of the wand while Shadow of Mordor has it all including: Fighting the Nazgul and forging a new Ring.
Wait, there's a LOTR game? - Misfire
I've only read a few books (which do not include LOTR or HP) so I can't say if this is true or not. - Misfire
Gandalf is more angel than wizard.
It truly was the first of its kind.
Harry Potter is aimed at and is more suitable for younger kids while Lord of The Rings is suitable for mostly all ages, from 9 to infinity as long as the reader understands Tolkien's language. Yes, it is true that there are adults who claimed to enjoy reading Harry Potter but the majority of Lord of the Rings readers are far more than Harry Potter readers. In all word, Lord of The Rings win. No competition here.
Lord of the Rings isn't overrated by younger kids much like how Harry Potter and Star Wars are.
It's actually aimed at all audiences
I agree. Harry is still immature, hermione is still a know-it-all, and ron is still just flat out STUPID.
In HP, Harry stills a nervous wizard, Hermione knows all all the time and Ron stills an idiot.
In LOTR, Boromir says that Gondor needs no king and after she calls Aragorn "My King". Gimli hates elfs, but after he becomes a friend with Legolas. Sam is a shy gardener, but after she becomes brave and save Frodo.
Harry Potter has sequels and prequels too... doesn't it...? - Misfire
Unlike Harry Potter, LOTR has a prequel that makes sense; Harry Potter only has Part 1 and Part 2 which doesn't even apply. That doesn't count.
Yeah, just listen to the soundtrack separately. You can really admire the orchestra playing and take into account how well it fit with the themes.
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.
Mg dad read read Lotr to me when I was 5-6 years old, The Hobbit when I was 6-7 years old, and The Silmarillion when I was 7-8 years old. After that, I was introduced to Harry Potter. I still distinctly remember certain stories from The Silmarillion, such as Beren and Luthíen, and Túrin's story, despite the fact it has been around 6 years since my dad read it to me. Meanwhile, some details have slipped from Mr memories of Harry Potter despite the fact I read it a few months ago.
Along the way to mount doom, Frodo, Sam, and the fellowship of the ring face many problems, they don't just teleport or use magic to make the journey.
In HP if you're not a wizard, you're considered as an idiot (I'm not speaking about Hermione because she was intelligent and it's why she was choosen.). In LOTR no matter if you're an elf or a dwarf you can become friend. OK, in the LOTR some elves hates dwarfs, but it's showed that we can change it.
Lord of the Rings is very beautifully written with archaic words. Harry Potter on the other hand feels like it is written by a 12 year old.