By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Harry Potter VS Star Wars! Which series is better?

 

Harry Potter VS Star Wars! Which series is better?

Harry potter 126 46.49%
 
Star wars 145 53.51%
 
Total:271
darthdevidem01 on 02 December 2010
Kantor said:

The books... they make for an entertaining read. Nothing on His Dark Materials or Lord of the Rings, but pretty good stuff. Not a single Harry Potter movie has been anywhere near the quality of the novel, though.

Of course, Star Wars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HP books.

oh god why did they screw up the Golden compass movie 

His Dark Materials <3



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Around the Network
Kennyheart on 02 December 2010
darthdevidem01 said:
Kantor said:

The books... they make for an entertaining read. Nothing on His Dark Materials or Lord of the Rings, but pretty good stuff. Not a single Harry Potter movie has been anywhere near the quality of the novel, though.

Of course, Star Wars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HP books.

oh god why did they screw up the Golden compass movies

His Dark Materials <3

I like the movie but yeah it was sort of bad.



rocketpig on 02 December 2010
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:

And btw yes, it is possible for a "rational human being" to prefer Harry Potter over the LotR.


Sure, it's possible to prefer Potter to LotR.

However, it is not possible for a rational human being to actually think Potter is BETTER than LotR. By any standard of art, writing, performance, direction (talking about both the novels and films), Tolkien/Jackson's work is just flat-out superior in every regard.

lol The LotR books are sooo boring. And I am rational.

Whether you think they're boring or not, they're brilliant pieces of literature that completely redefined the way we think of fantasy settings, epic stories, and British literature.

Uhm not really...

The books weren't all that well received when they came out.

Then it proceeded to become the second-best selling book of the 20th century in the western world behind... The Bible.

You're going to have to do better than that.

Doing better than what? Just make some research. The books received mixed reviews and that's a fact.

And I don't see what's the point of talking about sales.

Sales matter when it's the best selling piece of fiction of the past century.

EVERYTHING receives mixed reviews in literature. Hell, even Citizen Kane was trampled by segments of the press when it released and it's widely considered a top five film of all time, if not the greatest of all time. Saying something received "mixed reviews" in the world of literature is usually a compliment. Books that change how people think about the medium tend to get a fair amount of backlash. If that book is still being read 50 or 75 years down the road by students, scholars, and casuals, then you know it really impacted the world.

Therefore, my sales argument (sales that extend to this day) is actually far more relevant than your review argument that stopped mattering a half century ago.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Boutros on 02 December 2010
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:

And btw yes, it is possible for a "rational human being" to prefer Harry Potter over the LotR.


Sure, it's possible to prefer Potter to LotR.

However, it is not possible for a rational human being to actually think Potter is BETTER than LotR. By any standard of art, writing, performance, direction (talking about both the novels and films), Tolkien/Jackson's work is just flat-out superior in every regard.

lol The LotR books are sooo boring. And I am rational.

Whether you think they're boring or not, they're brilliant pieces of literature that completely redefined the way we think of fantasy settings, epic stories, and British literature.

Uhm not really...

The books weren't all that well received when they came out.

Then it proceeded to become the second-best selling book of the 20th century in the western world behind... The Bible.

You're going to have to do better than that.

Doing better than what? Just make some research. The books received mixed reviews and that's a fact.

And I don't see what's the point of talking about sales.

Sales matter when it's the best selling piece of fiction of the past century.

EVERYTHING receives mixed reviews in literature. Hell, even Citizen Kane was trampled by segments of the press when it released and it's widely considered a top five film of all time, if not the greatest of all time. Saying something received "mixed reviews" in the world of literature is usually a compliment. Books that change how people think about the medium tend to get a fair amount of backlash. If that book is still being read 50 or 75 years down the road by students, scholars, and casuals, then you know it really impacted the world.

I think Harry Potter outsells the LotR, though.



Kennyheart on 02 December 2010
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:

And btw yes, it is possible for a "rational human being" to prefer Harry Potter over the LotR.


Sure, it's possible to prefer Potter to LotR.

However, it is not possible for a rational human being to actually think Potter is BETTER than LotR. By any standard of art, writing, performance, direction (talking about both the novels and films), Tolkien/Jackson's work is just flat-out superior in every regard.

lol The LotR books are sooo boring. And I am rational.

Whether you think they're boring or not, they're brilliant pieces of literature that completely redefined the way we think of fantasy settings, epic stories, and British literature.

Uhm not really...

The books weren't all that well received when they came out.

Then it proceeded to become the second-best selling book of the 20th century in the western world behind... The Bible.

You're going to have to do better than that.

Doing better than what? Just make some research. The books received mixed reviews and that's a fact.

And I don't see what's the point of talking about sales.

Sales matter when it's the best selling piece of fiction of the past century.

EVERYTHING receives mixed reviews in literature. Hell, even Citizen Kane was trampled by segments of the press when it released and it's widely considered a top five film of all time, if not the greatest of all time. Saying something received "mixed reviews" in the world of literature is usually a compliment. Books that change how people think about the medium tend to get a fair amount of backlash. If that book is still being read 50 or 75 years down the road by students, scholars, and casuals, then you know it really impacted the world.

I think Harry Potter outsells the LotR, though.

In flim gross yeah.



Around the Network
Muffin31190 on 02 December 2010

This Is about Star Wars and Harry Potter ... why the hell are u all talking about about Lord Of The Rings.



Boutros on 02 December 2010
Kennyheart said:
Boutros said:

I think Harry Potter outsells the LotR, though.

In flim gross yeah.

The books too I think.



rocketpig on 02 December 2010
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:

And btw yes, it is possible for a "rational human being" to prefer Harry Potter over the LotR.


Sure, it's possible to prefer Potter to LotR.

However, it is not possible for a rational human being to actually think Potter is BETTER than LotR. By any standard of art, writing, performance, direction (talking about both the novels and films), Tolkien/Jackson's work is just flat-out superior in every regard.

lol The LotR books are sooo boring. And I am rational.

Whether you think they're boring or not, they're brilliant pieces of literature that completely redefined the way we think of fantasy settings, epic stories, and British literature.

Uhm not really...

The books weren't all that well received when they came out.

Then it proceeded to become the second-best selling book of the 20th century in the western world behind... The Bible.

You're going to have to do better than that.

Doing better than what? Just make some research. The books received mixed reviews and that's a fact.

And I don't see what's the point of talking about sales.

Sales matter when it's the best selling piece of fiction of the past century.

EVERYTHING receives mixed reviews in literature. Hell, even Citizen Kane was trampled by segments of the press when it released and it's widely considered a top five film of all time, if not the greatest of all time. Saying something received "mixed reviews" in the world of literature is usually a compliment. Books that change how people think about the medium tend to get a fair amount of backlash. If that book is still being read 50 or 75 years down the road by students, scholars, and casuals, then you know it really impacted the world.

I think Harry Potter outsells the LotR, though.

And it only took Rowling 7 books to do it... versus one for LotR (LotR is generally tracked as one book as that is the way it was intended to be published but paper shortages and price demanded that it be split into three post-war).

Besides, comparing post-2000 sales numbers to post-war sales numbers is ludicrous... it's akin to comparing sales for Halo: Reach to Super Mario Bros. 3... and in any case, Wikipedia tracks LotR as being the second-best selling novel of all time behind A Tale of Two Cities.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig on 02 December 2010
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:

And btw yes, it is possible for a "rational human being" to prefer Harry Potter over the LotR.


Sure, it's possible to prefer Potter to LotR.

However, it is not possible for a rational human being to actually think Potter is BETTER than LotR. By any standard of art, writing, performance, direction (talking about both the novels and films), Tolkien/Jackson's work is just flat-out superior in every regard.

lol The LotR books are sooo boring. And I am rational.

Whether you think they're boring or not, they're brilliant pieces of literature that completely redefined the way we think of fantasy settings, epic stories, and British literature.

Uhm not really...

The books weren't all that well received when they came out.

Then it proceeded to become the second-best selling book of the 20th century in the western world behind... The Bible.

You're going to have to do better than that.

Doing better than what? Just make some research. The books received mixed reviews and that's a fact.

And I don't see what's the point of talking about sales.

Sales matter when it's the best selling piece of fiction of the past century.

EVERYTHING receives mixed reviews in literature. Hell, even Citizen Kane was trampled by segments of the press when it released and it's widely considered a top five film of all time, if not the greatest of all time. Saying something received "mixed reviews" in the world of literature is usually a compliment. Books that change how people think about the medium tend to get a fair amount of backlash. If that book is still being read 50 or 75 years down the road by students, scholars, and casuals, then you know it really impacted the world.

I think Harry Potter outsells the LotR, though.

And it only took Rowling 7 books to do it... versus one for LotR (LotR is generally tracked as one book as that is the way it was intended to be published but paper shortages and price demanded that it be split into three post-war).

Besides, comparing post-2000 sales numbers to post-war sales numbers is ludicrous... it's akin to comparing sales for Halo: Reach to Super Mario Bros. 3... and in any case, Wikipedia tracks LotR as being the second-best selling novel of all time behind A Tale of Two Cities.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig on 02 December 2010
Soriku said:
rocketpig said:
Boutros said:

And btw yes, it is possible for a "rational human being" to prefer Harry Potter over the LotR.


Sure, it's possible to prefer Potter to LotR.

However, it is not possible for a rational human being to actually think Potter is BETTER than LotR. By any standard of art, writing, performance, direction (talking about both the novels and films), Tolkien/Jackson's work is just flat-out superior in every regard.


I like LotR but seriously the writing in the books is so boring compared to Harry Potter. I only read the third one and watched the movies btw (which are awesome). LotR translates to the big screen better than the books represent the series...the opposite for HP though. So if we're basing things off like that, HP is better than LotR IMO.

And people wonder why modern literature is dead. If a book doesn't hook someone in five pages, it must be terrible, overwrought, and boring. The scope of Tolkien's work is breath-taking and if you can't sit down long enough to actually appreciate that majesty, well, it's just a loss for you.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/