webdiplomacy.net

Who wins?

LotR is a lot cooler

LotR powerscaling goes FAR higher than harry potter

When 2 novel series have a fight, the real winner is the one holding their covers for them, that is Narnia.

LotR scales above narnia too I’m pretty sure

In any case, LotR has a lot more functional lore (whatshisname was the umpteenth king of Gondor after the fall of whatshisname the dwarf) than Harry Potter. In addition, the fact that we don't know what spells do and do not exist in Harry Potter reduces the stakes; anything can happen if it's narrative friendly. Granted, the same thing applies to LotR when Gandalf is present, but at least the lore and plot of LotR is based around the One Ring (which has a defined, definite set of powers: It makes you invisible, but sends you to the spirit realm, where Sauron can sense and corrupt you. Sauron is invincible if he gets the One Ring), while the lore and plot of Harry Potter is based around crappy magic that we know very little about. There's a reason I stopped reading midway through the 5th book.

Sauron would kill Harry Potter quite easily.

It would make for a far shorter story if the two worlds were combined

Gandalf "Keep it secret, keep it safe"

Meanwhile, in Mordor
Sauron "Accio ring"

Gandalf "Fuck"

DiplomacyandWarfare wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2024 11:49 am

In any case, LotR has a lot more functional lore

goes even further if we consider sources like the Silmarillion, which further upscales the entities in the LotR universe

I personally think LoTR is the better franchise. They're better books, better movies, better video games, etc. I think they'll have a deeper and longer lasting impact on the culture than HP, which is not to diminish how wildly popular HP is.

That said, it seems like the owners of these intellectual properties are eager to squeeze them for every dollar they're worth regardless of quality. While a new film adaptation, TV show, etc., doesn't take away from the genius of the original works or previous well-done adaptations, it will affect the public perception of whether the universe remains interesting.

I'd argue HP did this to itself before the book series was even complete. The quality of the books starts to drop off around the middle of the series - they get too long, the romances are pretty bleh, the whole horcrux thing unduly felt stretched out, etc. This got mirrored in the movies, where the first few feel unique and wonderous, while the later ones are relentlessly dreary and feel untrue to the universe (e.g., everyone wearing hoodies). Of course, maybe this is just nostalgia for the ones released when I was younger. I lost interest before the Fantastic Beasts series but that was fairly well reviewed. Apparently there is an HBO show in the works and I'm tentatively hopeful HBO would do it well. Hogwarts Legacy (video game) was pretty well regarded. So maybe the extended universe is helping rather than hurting HP.

Meanwhile, the LoTR is a solid book trilogy. The Hobbit is remains a good read. The Peter Jackson film trilogy is basically perfect - hardcore fans who dislike the films, in my view, just don't understand what makes for a good big screen adaptation of fantasy (you need to cut corners, add some plot points/humour/romance, represent Sauron as a big floating eye, etc.). There are some pretty good board games (War of the Ring) and video games (Return of the King, Shadow of Mordor, etc.). But IMO the extended universe isn't doing the series any favours. I would say the recent The Hobbit movies were terrible. I found The Rings of Power offputting and didn't feel compelled to go much past episode 2 (though maybe it got better?). Jackson and Serkis are apparently working on yet another LoTR film and frankly I'm not hopeful.

I really must say that harry Potter has more complex character development and plot consistency. J.K. Rowling does a fabulous job of keeping the main cast short and memorable, whereas I am not sure LotR does the best job of managing all the characters. Just my opinion tho

RadmanUltraYT wrote: ↑

Fri May 10, 2024 8:08 pm

I really must say that harry Potter has more complex character development and plot consistency. J.K. Rowling does a fabulous job of keeping the main cast short and memorable, whereas I am not sure LotR does the best job of managing all the characters. Just my opinion tho

I agree with this, but it's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison.

I looked it up and the LOTR trilogy covers a period of 18 months, while the HP series extends over 7 school years. HP characters start as children and end as young adults, while in the LOTR everyone is already an adult.

Characters in the LOTR seem to serve a somewhat different purpose than they do in HP. In LOTR the characters are allegories of certain archetypes and/or the representatives of nations and races in Middle Earth. Consider an example: Boromir is a stand-in for human fallibility, Aragorn is a stand-in for human virtue - they aren't supposed to develop, they're just supposed to play their part in an epic (but actually quite short) adventure.

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Thu May 09, 2024 11:30 pm

the whole horcrux thing unduly felt stretched out, etc.

Upon review, I'm actually somewhat surprised there wasn't one destroyed per book, although they're so hard to get rid of that maybe that wasn't a feasible option from the narrative's perspective.

DougJoe wrote: ↑

Fri May 10, 2024 8:29 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Thu May 09, 2024 11:30 pm

the whole horcrux thing unduly felt stretched out, etc.

Upon review, I'm actually somewhat surprised there wasn't one destroyed per book, although they're so hard to get rid of that maybe that wasn't a feasible option from the narrative's perspective.

That's actually a great point. I suspect that it was because Rowling didn't plan the long-term series out at book one. Maybe the horcruxes idea came later? I think by book five at least the horcruxes should've been mentioned, but honestly imo the series flows well as is.

Side note: which Harry Potter book is best? I gotta say that Azkaban is pretty good but I like Half-Blood Prince as well

RadmanUltraYT wrote: ↑

Fri May 10, 2024 8:08 pm

I really must say that harry Potter has more complex character development and plot consistency.

...plot consistency? Harry Potter? Did we read the same books?

LoTR has such a degree of consistency that you can trace plot threads from the creation of the world through the main narrative and beyond. Even throwaway details are, in the background, solidly established in the world and have 2nd/3rd degree impacts on story events you see upfront. HP's worldbuilding threads barely last more than one book - sometimes less.

The Horcuxes are peak example: They go from being these mythical artifacts that influence entire books' worth of events, to trivial side-objectives that get found and destroyed in a few chapters. One of them by accident!

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Fri May 10, 2024 8:28 pm

In LOTR the characters are allegories of certain archetypes and/or the representatives of in-world nations. Consider an example: Boromir is a stand-in for human fallibility, Aragorn is a stand-in for human virtue - they aren't supposed to develop, they're just supposed to play their part in an epic (but actually quite short) adventure.

I think this is shortselling what goes on and seems like a movie-only analysis. It's important to note that "character development" is not synonymous with "characters developing." Character development is exploring the details of a character such that they are a believable person, not just a vessel for the author. A character could be relatively unchanged over the course of a story, but our understanding of them is what developed.

Aragorn, for instance. Archetype of human virtue? Far from it! Remember how he's introduced as Strider, a Ranger of the North? It's significantly downplayed in the movies - especially because you only know of him as "Strider" for 15 minutes before it's revealed he's Aragorn, Isildur's Heir - but Aragorn's whole thing is that he's been avoiding the mantle of "King of Gondor" for decades because he feels the sins of his line (Isildur's Betrayal) mean he can't be king, and instead dedicates himself to personal acts of heroism and leadership. It isn't until Return of the King that he grows into accepting that he is not Isildur and can restore his house's honor and crown.

Boromir, likewise, is in the movie set up as a more blunt and aggressive foil to Aragorn. His "We should use the ring as a weapon!" line seems like a throwaway "Look at how easily Men are corrupted"... until you find out that he'd been on the front line of the war against Sauron's forces at Osgiliath for months; the whole reason he was at the Council of Elrond was because he had a prophetic dream and came to Rivendell to beg for aid. His interaction with the Hobbits and the friendship he forms with them - especially Merry and Pippin - further flesh out that he's not just a meathead warrior, he is a genuinely impressive, noble man in desperate circumstances... who, tragically, is the exact kind of person the Ring could corrupt.

And that's not even getting into the Hobbits, who are subject to "characters developing" over the course of the story, as they go from country bumpkins to world-renowned heroes, titled nobility, and friends to demigods.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2024 12:14 pm

Sauron would kill Harry Potter quite easily.

Yet, Sauron couldn't even find a Hobbit in the Shire who didn't know he was being hunted.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2024 12:42 pm

It would make for a far shorter story if the two worlds were combined

Gandalf "Keep it secret, keep it safe"

Meanwhile, in Mordor
Sauron "Accio ring"

Gandalf "Fuck"

I just got this mental image of every ring in Gondor and Rohan mystically zeroing in on Sauron at great velocity. Interesting way for an antagonist to kill himself.

It probably didn't work like that in the books. The school would have been buried in sundry items pulled by the spell.

Harry Potter has no stakes. If He Who Must Be Redacted traps Harry in a magical mini prison (not that this ever happened as far as I know), Dumbledore might or might not detect it from miles away and magically teleport Harry to the middle of a Quidditch match, whichever is plot convenient. He Who Must Be Redacted kind of dies in the first book, but he's not actually dead because that isn't plot-convenient. HP is basically just a series of gimmicks to get the plot where it's supposed to go, which removes the severity of anything that happens because there's nothing to say it can't be undone the next chapter.

LotR by contrast has clear stakes. If Sauron gets the One Ring, he wins. The magic (both the Rings and Gandalf) have clear limits. If Frodo uses the Ring, Sauron might see and/or corrupt him. Gandalf is clearly finitely powerful (he's roughly equally as powerful as the Balrog, less powerful than Sauron, and becomes more powerful than Saruman after he defeats the Balrog and is "sent back" to fight Saruman. Moreover, Gandalf is one of the most powerful characters of LotR, and even he has limits, compared to HP where even the least skilled student at Hogwarts has basically no limits to their power because of the lack of rules in the HP magic system. There's a clear difference in the type of fantasy: HP has a more engaging and less mentally stressing plot (you don't have to remember who the umpteenth king of Gondor was to be amused by the concept of a giant wizard chess match), while LotR has a more well developed magic system and lore.

One thing Harry Potter has over LOTR is that the series could conceivably go on forever, into the future, into the far and distant past etc
However, LOTR has an end game, and LOTR is basically the last chapter of it. There's some more stuff afterwards but it basically fades off into nothingness. I know there's supposed to be like a super epic battle at the end with Morgoth coming back but after that the series is over. There is no LOTR in space essentially. Whereas an HP story could be done in any time period essentially

If you want to back a horse that'll survive the next 200 years or so in the media, its HP if it continues to be popular, because LOTR has only so many stories it can tell until it runs out

That being said LOTR > HP all the way, just some story one day will have that staying power that LOTR does not