Comments by "Taxtro" (@MrCmon113) on "Harry Potter Vs The Lord of the Rings" video.

  1. Rhiannon Brenner Inspired? I had Latin at school and the spells are really only Latin words. Tolkien devised a complete grammar and lots of etymology for his word. An epic fantasy setting is just something else than a modern (realistic) fantasy setting. Most of the comparisons in the video are false comparisons. LOTR has no true "protagonist".
    10
  2. Rhiannon Brenner Still it were just single locations within our world. I can't remember Rowling devising new languages.
    7
  3. Ian Persson "a bunch of extra books"?! The Silmarillion is the main work of Tolkien, that was never and probably would never have been finished even if Tolkien lived for an additional hundred years. The Lord of the Rings is one of the extra books.
    6
  4. patman0250 "im pretty sure the world agrees with me bro" Actually to most movie fans and critics Gollum is the best CGI and motion capture character ever. If it was bad to you, well that's not your fault, but you're pretty alone with that perception.
    6
  5. patman0250 Instead of typing this you could have done research. Maybe you should pull something out of your ass: your head.
    5
  6. ***** It has both "Ring" in it, it must be the same... "RationalThinkingSkeptic" - rather kid that can't distinguish between inspiration and imitation.
    4
  7. AtomicSpatula You're so embarrassing. O_o
    3
  8. AtomicSpatula Wow. Didn't expect a classy answer from someone who wrote "Beowhatever can suck it". Genuinely surprised me. : 3
    3
  9. I'm a fan of Tolkien's works, but I won't thumb up your comment. Neither do I care about this stupid comparison or who won. LoTR is a huge saga about the end of the Third Age in Middle Earth, while HP are novels that closely follow the life of one person and his strife against evil. I don't see how I could compare the franchises.
    3
  10. D.N.A. Cat "that meant that he had less places to hide from Voldemort" That's bullshit. Harry Potter plays in our world and has merely a few additional, "hidden" places. Actually Harry could hide more easily as he could travel all over the world, whereas the Hobbits would need years to get out of the Northwest of Middle Earth.
    3
  11. Now that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard about the movies. Peter Jackson did everything he could to make them fast paced and action packed. If this is still too slow for you, you won't enjoy 90% of movies and books for that reason.
    3
  12. bruffmeister1 Cerberus? I think that dog was called Fluffy. He just happened to have three heads.
    3
  13. True. This whole argument is ridiculous. I don't see how I could compare LoTR with Harry Potter. The one is the saga of the end of the Third Age in Middle Earth, the other is the story of a young wizard. The one's main villain is like a gathering storm, the other's like a lurking wolf. The one is told with distance to all characters, the other follows his protagonist closely. Just because both are considered "fantasy" they don't have to have the same purpose.
    3
  14. Bella Roberts This would mean slashing Orc heads off has to wait until the end of a very long movie.
    2
  15. Jay Dub I guess you wouldn't even have left the Shire but stayed in some dark hole fondling your "precious".
    2
  16. Mirkel Leliveld That is untrue. You cannot be brave unless you are affected by fear. Bravery is the overcoming of fear. As far as Morgoth is concerned - he feared things because he was wise - he new that his phsyical body could be harmed after he fled from Valinor.
    2
  17. Martijn van Beurden The Silmarillion was never written to appeal to an audience. It was Tolkien's personal approach to myth which his son edited into a small book. This said I didn't find it all that hard to follow, when you keep looking up the names and places while reading.
    1
  18. pur3gre3k254 What a bogus comparison. Lord of the Rings just has now complex characters or character development and it never wanted to. You're just so told, that Legolas and Gimli have become friends: no build up at all. I think there's even more development of their relationship in the movie adaption although Gimli is merely a comic relief there. " For instance, Tolkien depicted the protagonist to be a hobbit (Frodo) as depicted in the film he was young looking" That's never a main point in the novel. In the first of six books you're introduced to the world together with the Hobbits but that's it. Lord of the Rings has no protagonist. It's told from the perspective of different people - mostly Hobbits, but it's always very far removed from those characters. In contrast Harry Potter has a very distinct protagonist: Harry. The reader is close to this protagonist and shares his feelings / thoughts. The story is modeled around him The story of Lord of the Rings is modeled around none of the characters. In certain events, certain characters just have no importance at all. It is an epic more than a modern novel. "Fellowship/Hermione and Ron + The others" No, just no. Where Hermione and Ron are supporting characters to Harry, all members of the Fellowship are independent. The reader won't get really close to any of them.  I don't know if it makes much sense to those who read my comment: To me Tolkien's characters are seldom realistic, but they are "real". They do not yield to the story, but are, at times, obstacles to it. This does not come through in Peter's adaptions. He even changed Faramir completely for story and pacing.
    1
  19. pur3gre3k254 Well you say it yourself: Rowling obviously drew inspiration from Tolkien. So what has that to do with a copy? Reading HP and reading LotR are altogether different experiences. "Seeing the movie and reading the books are different." Very much so. Peter tries to get the viewer closer to the characters, while a reader of LotR stays in great distance to the characters. Now I must admit that I did not read ALL of the HP novels, but in those which I read, Harry was clearly the protagonist. The reader was very close to him and witnessed his development at first hand. There's a difference between esteeming something's value and making it something it's not. Saying there is complex character development, etc. in Lord of the Rings is like saying that the Unfinished Tales is a collection of poems.
    1
  20. Kilgar "The story is lot harder to read and connect to, since its more dificult to understand." I did not find it difficult to understand at all. I'm not a native speaker and Poe or Lovecraft are at times hard to understand for me - I had no problems with Lord of the Rings. "Although you are wrong with the "no real character development" part between Gimli and Legolas. " You're literally told they are friends now when they leave Lothlorien: "Aragorn, Frodo, and Sam were in one boat; Boromir, Merry, and Pippin in another; and in the third were Legolas and Gimli, who had now become fast friends." - Farewell to Lorien You don't witness them becoming friends, you get told so. At all times from this chapter on, they're friends. You never get any thoughts on their relationship and when they talk it's usually about subject matter like the war or about beautiful caves or forests. (Still dislike what Peter did to Gimli...) "So, again, its like comparing apples and oranges " That's what I said, too. You can compare them, but it's gotta be a proper comparison. When it's about the setting, LotR wins without competition - when it's about the "protagonist", HP wins without competition. One of the many false comparisons in this video. Oh and to the Frodo as protagonist thing - I really reject this notion, especially because all of the end is from Sam's perspective. The very end of the novel is Sam coming home. You could say that the single books of LotR have protagonists, but not the novel as a whole.
    1
  21. pur3gre3k254 There's just no way to have a discussion with you. You're dead set on arguing the "which is better" cause with someone who finds HP better than LotR. Well then find someone like that to argue with! I'm sick and tired of being a strawman for your comments. I'm arguing subject matters and you're doing a penis comparison.
    1
  22. pur3gre3k254 "how Tolkien didn't want it to be a one person protagonist book" WHAT?! No, that's what I said a thousand times in the comments under this video. Does it never ever occur to you, that someone MIGHT argue a single aspect and not what's better? I'm probably a much bigger Tolkien fan than anyone here and I'm treated as some dumb child by you, just because I disagreed on one topic.
    1
  23. pur3gre3k254 Well I'm just fed up with being talked down to by a stranger, who would not engage in a talk on the topic but rather polarize. No matter what I wrote, you made it a Tolkien vs Rowling thing and set me up as a strawman. "you certainly whine like one" Yeah that's your accomplishment. When I'm pissed, I act pissed and I'm not planning to change that, no matter how old I get. Further it's ironic that I seem like a child to a person, who tries to make this a penis comparison in each of his comments. - who tries to lecture me on the most obvious things, although I MUST know them to even make the points I made. I saw your comment, Kilgar, but I had to finish this last rant.
    1
  24. pur3gre3k254 "making him feel stupid" No making me a strawman for your arguments. How could you make me feel stupid by telling me things I already know? "Typical HP fans" See? You can't live without strawmen for your arguments. Again: find someone to argue against, instead of abusing anyone you come across as a false opponent. But you just won't admit doing that - there's no reason to comment on this further.
    1
  25. Dale Gribble There are no dragons in LoTR. As far as I remember only one is even mentioned: Ancalagon the Black. You are probably referring to the winged mounts of the Nazgul, which have no name.
    1
  26. Mohamed Ghita Did I say that there was only one dragon ever in Aman or Middle Earth? No I spoke about the novel LOTR, but you seem to have as much fun being a smartass as I do.
    1
  27. Mohamed Ghita Ok. The way you put it, it came across more like a correction than an addition to me.
    1
  28. Harris Neill No, The Hobbit was written before LOTR. Tolkien only started LOTR when publishers asked for more. They are two different novels.
    1
  29. Harris Neill This is all nice and fancy, but I was referring to you saying "therefor making smaug part of LOTR" which is not true. That's like saying Lot and Melchizedek are part of the New Testament.
    1
  30. ***** Judging from that I'd say that you know of neither more than the name, let alone the tales that inspired them. Stinks like troll.
    1
  31. ***** "no bigger fans of the Ring than I am" Of all the idiotic things you said this is probably the most offensive to fans of Wagner's work. _____________________________ The guy who thought Alberich was just like Gollum claims to be the biggest fan of Wagner's Ring der Nibelungen. XD ______________________________ If anything Alberich is comparable to Sauron, though only very remotely. "You lost all the ground you thought you had when you admitted that you knew nothing about the Ring cycle before you googled it half an hour ago." - RationalThinkin to Greenleaf Even a brief summary of both works is enough to see that they have only elements in common while their theme and characters are completely different.
    1
  32. ***** I'm sad that we share the same fandom. And if there's one bad thing the film adaptions have caused, it's that they attracted so many douchebags, like you.
    1
  33. ***** Durin's Bane was not a servant of Sauron. I don't think any Balrog would let Sauron command him (or her? dunno if there are lady-Balrogs).
    1
  34. ***** Higher authority - probably. But I don't think a Balrog sees itself as a soldier and follows the next highest adherent of Morgoth. Probably the rise of Sauron and the activity of the Balrog were connected, but not as servant following an order.
    1
  35. If any of you would be certain of your perception of the franchises you wouldn't give a fuck about this stupid comparison.
    1
  36. Yianni Contis The comparison between Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings is quite forced. I don't see much of a common ground apart from both being fantasy and having archetypical villains. No fan should worry about his franchise being threatened or disrespected by such a thing. You and Glen claimed scores for your sides, yet HP cannot come close to LOTR in anything LOTR wants to be - and LOTR fails at things HP was meant to offer.
    1
  37. bruffmeister1 Melkor did not create the Balrogs, he won over many Maiar of Aule, which became the Balrogs. If fact Melkor couldn't actually create anything, he could only shape things to the liking of his dark mind.
    1
  38. Jay Dub Hm trolling or not having read the books? : 3
    1
  39. Jay Dub It is explained multiple times that the Ring's influence grows as they come closer to Orodruin. Shelob is described as much stronger than the spiders of Mirkwood. To overlook this is pretty easy when you haven't read the books, or when you're just trying to troll people and waste my time.
    1
  40. Jay Dub So Shelob is "one spider" now... I think I'm wasting my time here explaining stuff when you could just read the books and find out yourself.
    1
  41. Mirkel Leliveld In the Silmarillion it is often mentioned how Morgoth feared something and how Morgoth most of all Valar knew fear. I guess he's a coward too then?
    1
  42. Frodo had a happy childhood in the Shire with Bilbo and his young Hobbit friends while Harry was abused by his aunts family. Being a fan of all of Tolkien's works I have to say that Harry all in all was worse off than Frodo.
    1
  43. patman0250 "dobby looked way better some scenes there was even a real puppet cant beat that" I just noticed your puppet - comment. A puppet can't beat an actor?! You might want to look into puppet theatre - usually aimed at kids, but if you think a puppet does a better job than Andy Serkis, it might be something for you.
    1
  44. patman0250 "better then cgi" Oh another "cgi is always bad" - nerd. Although a reputable nerd would never keep spamming out oneliners... I'll tell you my opinion: Make up, puppets and CGI have all their place, it's up to the director to use whatever is necessary. However well done CGI is by far superior to anything you can do with animatronics or stop motion. We can hardly beat natural movements and we most certainly can not with puppets or robots.
    1