>Lord of the Rings is way better than Harry Potter

That's an objective fact.

>>79146434
>pic unrelated

>>79146434
That is correct

>>79146434
What's the deal with this pose? Why do neckbeards with katanas always look down and hide their eyes like that?

>>79146434
I don't like either, so not what to say.
Harry Potter seems to be more popular with basic bitches, LOTR seems to have strong NEET fedora appeal, but not sure why these memes exist.

>>79146690
Because then you don't know what's coming next.....your imminent death from a superior combatant!

File: 1485828271848.jpg (138KB, 576x1024px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 576x1024px

Lord of the Rings is better because it's not the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

>>79146434
>Getting punched in the face is way better than getting your arm chopped off with an ax.

It's true, but it doesn't mean that either of them are good.

>>79146434
Pretty much anything is better than Harry Potter, even Meet the Spartans is better than Harry Potter

>>79146434

FOTR > Two Towers > Azkaban > ROTK > other Harry Potter movies

These movies are in the objectively correct order of greatness

File: halfbloodkino.jpg (533KB, 1200x504px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 1200x504px

>>79147150
half blood prince and deathly hallows part 1 are better than return, though. or at least equal.

>>79147150
An Unexpected Journey is the only good Tolkien film.

Oakenshield is more of a hero than any of those other fags.

>>79147205

They're arguably better-shot, but the story is just so half-arsed that nothing could save the script.

>>79147281

Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

>>79147150
Except ROTK is the best LOTR movie.