They both kinda...suck.
I read the Hobbit many years ago, years later the Ring Trilogy.
I filed them away as mildly boring but sort of ok. When the Silmarillion came out i reread the ring trilogy and also made the discovery that the real lord of the rings was King Solomon. Seems he had a ring that enabled him to enslave the demons and force them to help construct his temple. Allegedly!
Most of the others are weak attempts at replication of Tolkein’s work.
I prefer A. C. Clark, Heinlein, Louis Lamour, and Asimov to name a few.
Check out the Silmarillion from the view point of how evil spreads wickedness throughout the world.
Caddis the Elder
There are literally hundreds of movies that use the premise of another one. Watched the Last Samurai for the first time this weekend. Remake of the Wild Bunch and Glory.
I love both series. IMO, the main difference is this. LOTR was written as a long novel, which was split into three at the request of the publisher. HP series was only an after thought, when the first one was immensely successful. Each of the book in HP can be read independently (except perhaps the last one). As a result, LOTR—despite its complexity—has a coherent story. Meanwhile, HP series—even though it has a main thread—feel like wonder around at times. New things are revealed in each subsequent book, and I felt as if Rowling tried hard to make it more complex than before. Not that the results are junk, though. They are really nicely done. Yet, we can point out where HP is lacking compared to LOTR.
The funny thing is I’m online in a library right now and the rest of the article is censored!
LOTR is my favorite all time movie series. I have the extended version and watch it every year. The concepts of battling evil and the corruption of absolute power obviously goes right over the heads of some people.
The oldest surviving piece of fictional literature is a clay tablet with "The Epic of Gilgamesh" (7th Century BC) inscribed thereon. Care to guess what archetype it exemplifies? That's right, it is perhaps the defining archetype of the “hero’s journey” genre. I believe Mr. Campbell would agree.
I think the Harry Potter series is dreck, written at a juvenile level for juveniles. The efforts of Peter Jackson to hew to the Tolkien storyline made the movies acceptable although I much prefer the written "Lord of the Rings" because the movie making process leaves much of the storyline on the cutting room floor. Tolkien spent a lifetime painstakingly constructing Middle Earth, J. K. Rowling grinds her scenarios out like a bakery spitting out loves of enriched wonder bread (leaves you wondering what's in it).
Regards,
GtG
No point in comparing. The LOTR films were real movies. The HP films were cartoonish, poorly acted, poorly edited rubbish that was rushed to the screen to capitalize on a craze. Pity, because I really enjoyed the books.
Too many to count, why bother? But I’m sure Rowling never read the LoTR and got any ideas from it. Purely coincidental.
PING!
LOTR is the creation of a brilliant, gifted antiquarian and linguist.
Potter is base, commercial schlock.