Thread Recap (last 10 posts from newest to oldest)
Feb 21, 10 at 3:41pm
Lord of the Rings, only because of Legolas. Haha. XP
Feb 20, 10 at 2:17pm
That was sort of my point, and I would agree based on the forum that this should be about the novels. The problem is, though, that the movie posters are what is showing up at the top. So this is definitely creating some confusion or, or at the very least, some overlap.
Feb 20, 10 at 2:15pm
Given the forum it's situated in I would think all discussion should pertain to the novels. Not too mention the films are created by completely different people and as such can't really be compared with the novels in terms of intellectual depth and artistic genius.
Feb 20, 10 at 2:13pm
Agreed, but this thread does not specify the novels versus the movies, to my knowledge. In fact, the two banners on the top of the page are of the movies.
Feb 20, 10 at 2:12pm
If you are not an avid reader, and are basing your opinion on the films, then your opinion is worthless; With regards to the novels of course.
Feb 20, 10 at 2:04pm
Loki, I would totally agree with you if it is some blind fanboy statement like, "ZOMG!! Like Harry Potter is awesome and The Rings sucks balls!! "
If someone were to try to make a case for the Harry Potter books being technically better, I would also agree with you. But there are some very enjoyable things about the Harry Potter series that may simply appeal to some readers.
By the way, oddly enough, because of Hollywood production and top notch special effects and direction, I would say there is LESS of an intrinsic quality difference between the Potter movies and the Rings movies. Truth be told, while I love the Rings books, I found the movies to be a bit boring and a little too long. I enjoyed the Harry Potter movies a helluva lot more. Not saying they are better at all, just more of what I personally look for in a movie.
So if I were, let's say, not an avid reader as I am. I might actually erroneously believe that Harry Potter was better because I had not read either series. This is important to remember. Again, I would agree with the consensus about the books at least. There is no comparison between the two in terms of pure brilliance. The Rings (in my opinion) trumps every single fantasy series I have ever read, including the Thomas Covenant series by Donaldson, which I absolutely LOVED.
Feb 20, 10 at 3:18am
I know you're completely right chirovette, that at the heart of the matter this is really just opinion. However, I can't help but think that people who consider the Harry Potter series to be better must be lacking something either in maturity or brains.
Feb 19, 10 at 7:44am
Exact truth, Chiro.
Feb 11, 10 at 1:11pm
So if there is no debate, as people are suggesting (some with very good reasons) then why even have the thread in the first place? Everyone is understandably harping on the fact that the Rings trilogy (my absolute favorite fantasy work, by the way) is better because of the fact that it is an absolute classic. Tolkein was a brilliant writer who dedicated pretty much his entire life to the world he created. Harry Potter, to me at least, reads like some Teeny-bopper witchcraft series. I am exagerating a little here, but I put Harry Potter into the same class as Twilight, while I put The Rings Trilogy up there with Shakespeare, Poe, Twain, Steinbeck, and many others.
The problem is that none of this intrinsically makes the Rings better. We are not talking about which principle in science is more accurate, creation or evolution, where there are clearcut scientific answers to this. We are talking about taste, entertainment, enjoyment, and personal preferences. And let's not forget that no matter what else fiction is (good or bad, classic or crap) it is still primarily entertainment!
Yes, in every intellectual and technical way that matters, there is no comparison between Harry Potter and The Rings. It's like comparing not just hamburger but a Burger King hamburger to a filet mignon in a top notch steakhouse like Peter Luger's or The Old Homestead. But what about the guy who just likes fast food better? I personally prefer Stephen King to Shakespeare. This does not mean I would be stupid enough to say King is a better writer than Shakepeare was. But most people that are saying that Harry Potter is better are NOT really saying it is better written, better crafted, or more of a techincal masterpiece. They are, directly and/or indirectly saying they like it better, which in my opinion is perfectly acceptable, or else (again) why have this thread at all?