Film.com: Comparisons between Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings

The One Ring.Net ^ | 11/27/10 | Calisuri

[Immerito]

Many of us Ringers know the comparisons of The Lord of the Rings to Harry Potter are many. Well, Film.com has compiled a few for your reading pleasure. Enjoy!

Fantasy stories generally lift from the same mythological source bank. Actually, if you want to get super scholarly and esoteric about it, every story (especially the more sword-and-sorcery themed variety) is the same basic “hero’s journey” archetype detailed by Joseph Campbell. But fantasy stories — King Arthur, Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, Willow, Peter Pan, Conan the Barbarian — build their world out of the same objects. You have magicians, dragons, unicorns, gnomes, and elves popping up to do battle, and they’ve made their way from medieval tapestries and texts to our modern movie screens.

[Read on]

[ROCKLOBSTER]

They both kinda...suck.

[devere]

“They both kinda...suck.”

Agree.

[surroundedbyblue]

I’ll second that motion

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Yeah, my wife is a big fan of the Harry Potter series, but it is quite apparent to me that Rowling ripped off not only Tolkien but also T. H. White's The Once and Future King and Sir Thomas Malory's The Death of Arthur.

[Immerito]

I am not a fan of Harry Potter (though I am a fan of Lord of the Rings); but from what I heard of the series, it sounds like she lifted more than a few concepts, components, etc. from Tolkien.

It’s amazing that nearly sixty years after Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings, writers are still (to some degree or another) imitating him. Amazing what a fellow who would otherwise have been an obscure philologist and professor accomplished.

[palmerizedCaddis]

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

[Mercat]

She uses Jane Austin a lot. It’s called narrative misdirection. We see everything from Harry’s point of view and so miss out on a lot of information. We think as he thinks and end up getting misdirected in every book until at the end, “I open at the close.” If you only watch the movies and you treat the books as children’s books, they are successful but basically boring to adults. If you approach them as literature, they are very successful. Of course, literature is not everyone’s cup of tea. Harry Potter has brought me back to Shakespeare, Jane Austin, and Dante. The Hero’s Journey is only one of the more shallow approaches to take. The theological approach is fascinating too. In every book he goes beneath the ground and rises in the presence or because of a symbol of Christ. In the last book Harry is the symbol.

[mad_as_he$$]

All of the Lord of the Rings movies could of been put into one without the walking.

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.

[Immerito]

The movies were certainly nowhere as near as good as the book, but I suspect that had any more cutting have been done, Tolkien’s material would have been cut and Jackson’s material would have been allowed to remain.

Hopefully the book will be made into a made-for-tv miniseries; that would give them enough time to be made justly, without a director’s “interpretations” being inserted therein.

[paudio]

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.

[Immerito]

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!

Try reading them again; I have found that some people enjoyed them much better on the re-read.

It’s amazing what sort of myths are told about historical figures, isn’t it?

[Nateman]

The funny thing is I’m online in a library right now and the rest of the article is censored!

[SVTCobra03]

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.

[Politicalmom]

LOTR is in my top 5 or 10, definitely. Just started watching Fellowship last night. My kids and I have moved twice in the last year, and this is our first holiday really settled again, so we haven’t seen them in a long time.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

every story (especially the more sword-and-sorcery themed variety) is the same basic “hero’s journey” archetype detailed by Joseph Campbell. But fantasy stories — King Arthur, Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, Willow, Peter Pan, Conan the Barbarian — build their world out of the same objects.

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

[FelixFelicis]

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.

[dr_who]

Too many to count, why bother? But I’m sure Rowling never read the LoTR and got any ideas from it. Purely coincidental.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

Rowling ripped off not only Tolkien but also T. H. White's The Once and Future King and Sir Thomas Malory's The Death of Arthur.

Not to mention C.S. Lewis' "Prince Caspian" in which he has Peter, Edmund, Susan and Lucy transported to their alternate world (Narnia) via a train leaving an underground station.

All art is derivative, if you copy and publish from a single source, it's plagiarism, if from multiple sources, it's "research".

Regards,
GtG

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

I dig out my copy of the Silmarillion whenever I have a bout of insomnia, it works every time. I've yet to get through chapter three.

I appreciate that it represents Tolkiens working notes underlying the "back story" leading to Middle Earth. But to me it is absolutely opaque!

Regards,
GtG