I prefer the Harry Potter books, and the LOTR movies.

They're both British.

HP.

LOTR. But i adore both. But Lord Of the Rings is just much more original and creative, hell even JK rowlings was influenced by JRR tolkien,. You can tell by the stories

LOTR is too ****ing long.


Harry Potter>>

I say LOTR but who cares me words? So i answer with these:

Oscar: 17>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>0 (LOTR wins)
IMDb: Lotr (8.7,8.8,8.9) & Harry (7.5 etc last film 8.1) LOTR wins
Critics: Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic gives LOTR better points. LOTR wins
Lists: Time, EW and more magazines says LOTR one of best films ever, harry is not even close. LOTR wins
Box Office: Average gross LOTR > Harry. LOTR wins
Ticket Sales: LOTR >>>>>>>>>>> Harry LOTR wins

I think everyone care my words now

The LORT films aren't.

Harry Potter is England-USA film.
LOTR is New Zealand-England-USA film

Harry Potter is the Best-Selling Film and Book series of all time. Both those facts outweigh anything the LORT series has ever accomplished.

I love LORT though.

You say good. HP is best selling film series cuz it has 8 films, so average is more fair. LOTR has better average grosses. Harry Potter is best selling book series cuz it has 7 books, harry potter series has sold 400-450 million units with 7 books and LOTR series has sold 150 million units with 3 book. They are close..

There's only one HP film that grossed less than any LORT film. The HP films each grossed large amounts to the point where 7 films grossed higher than The Fellowship of the Ring, 5 films grossed higher than The Two Towers and 1 grossed higher than The Return of the King. That can't be ignored.

But wait ignore that. The Harry Potter films average $963,268,497 per film while The Lord of the Rings films average $736,994,594.

OMG

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: $869 Million
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers: $923 Million
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: $1,119 Billion

Average: $970 Million. Please go learn maths

Important P.S: Tickets were cheaper in 2001-2003 era so its still wrong to compare with grosses but we can compare with tickets:

LOTR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HP (in ticket sales)

For example: fellowship of the ring grossed $869 million but sold more tickets than Order the phoenix or goblet of fire or half-blood prince

Do people just compare the movie to movie? From what I am seeing here people are just doing that. Anyways I tried reading the LOTR books but I barely even finished the first one without being bored. I heard LORT is good but the book was quite slow X_X. Anyways the one that has impacted the world most is definitely Harry Potter.

I love the films of LOTR a lot more than I do the books.
And I love the Harry Potter books and films equally. So HP for me

Oops, I realised that average was including the 1950s film too.

But still, that's only $7m more than HP which would be gone if DVD sales were taken into account. You can't deny the Harry Potter series was commendably consistent in it's grosses.

No. In my first post (Something like the 3rd post of this thread) I said I preferred the Harry Potter books. Now we're 'discussing' the film side of both.

Harry Potter books more than the LOTR books. The LOTR books are WAY too boring.
And the movies are equal to me. LOTR movies are too long sometimes, and it depends on my mood.

I love Harry Potter, i watched all series 4-5 times. Harry Potter is very good film.. But LOTR... hhhh..... LOTR books influenced Rowling(sorry i am no american or english, my english is bad), LOTR is the father of HP, we cant compare father with son

nnnnnnn you may want to edit that.