Yes, HP kind of is for kids. But I like it, especially the books. They're more simple than LotR, but I find them very enjoyable. They are alike in a lot of ways, which means Rowling copied things from Tolkien. Examples:
You've got one bad, big Lord (Sauron and Voldemort), who both have kind of died, but not really.
You've got a close gang around that Lord (Nazgul and Death Eaters)
You've got one hero, who isn't a typical hero (Frodo and Harry)
You've got one very inteligent old wizard with a long beard(Gandalf and Dumbledore)
You've got things in which the lord is preserved in some kind of way(Ring and a diary)
Well that's quite a lot already.
One thing I always have to laugh about too: in SW The Attack of the Clones Christopher Lee says something like 'Join me, it would be wise', and it's so much alike with that scene in FotR! 😄
It doesn't matter whether the actors are good looking or not, the fact is that LOTR is just better! LOL! Although, I still like Harry Potter, and it is clear that Rowling was inspired by Tolkien's works!
But then again.....Tolkien was inspired by other people too. Although I must admit that some of the similarities are ridiculous - e.g. Both Frodo and Harry being orphans and Wormtongue and Wormtail - it should be expected that some ideas are the same.
Even LOTR - if looked at with no depth, is just another good vs. evil tale. NOW DON'T CRITICISE WHAT I HAVE JUST SAID! Because that is not what I think of The Lord of the Rings - there is clearly more to it than the battle of good vs. evil, although this is clearly a huge element in the story.
Basically, I love both stories, although I love/worship/die for The Lord of the Rings about 2000 fold more! And I agree with what *tiger lily* said: LotR is intense, deeper, darker, overall more powerful. Whereas, HP is lighter, happier (despite the dark themes) and not so deep.
What I love about Tolkien's works is the whole creation of Middle-earth and how Tolkien was commited to that world for basically all of his life. There is more to the story than just the main plot, with the reader discovering more about the history of Middle-earth and the creation of the world. I also like the way Tolkien puts in little snippets in the conversations the hobbits have about events that have happened in the Shire/the inhabitants which are not referred to in the book. This makes the whole thing seem more historical.
That's the difference: HP is plain story telling, TLotR is a historical and magical masterpiece.
Overall, The Lord of the Rings is so so so so SO much better. Bless you Professor Tolkien! 😄
I am a Star Wars fan, a Lord of the Rings fan and somewhat a Harry Potter fan.
What do JarJar Binks and Doby have in common? They both suck and they both should have never been put in the movies.
While I think LOTR's never misses, both Star Wars and HP have thrown a few misses. I didn't like the last HP movie, the sets weren't as big and I thought both Ron and Harry over acted. JMO.
If I was told I could watch 2 of the 3 movies, which one would I watch? No contest LOTR's and SW's. Who is my favorite leading man? No contest, Hayden Christensen...
Hehe Funny, fuoco...
Okay, see, I like LotR a LOT more than HP. They really needed that sword thing in there to compare w/ LotR. Don't get me wrong, Rowling is a great writer, but how can nobody see how perfectly LotR was written? Nothing less than genius. HP is just another try at actually getting there.
Nothing against HP but Tolkien was a master, of fanstasy, language and the written word. Tolkien appeals to all generations. HP is more of a youth orientated work.
It's funny but I never considered the two to be in the same class, HP is watch worthy but I'd never stand in line to buy a ticket, actually I've never seen either of the HP movies on the big screen. I've seen FOTR 3 times in the movie and the same with TTT.. and thats saying alot because I'm cheap!