Star Wars, Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, pick one.

metoo wrote:

True, but was it a hit when released and have a lasting following from 1954 until the first movie in 2001. Maybe it did, but I wasn't really aware of the novel until the first movie came out. I haven't been able to get into Lord of the Rings so I really don't know. I am sure that will change though as the kids find the movies and want to watch each one 10 times.

I want to tear you a new a$$hole, but a part of me fees sorry for you and/or suspects that you are a troll.

Tolkien wrote the book on fantasy, pun intended. He is one of the most influential authors/artists of modern times.

I am not into fantasy, so his works did not affect me that much, but I still loved the stories.

Think about out culture of gaming and fantasy. So much of that is derivative of his work.

You have to go back to Ulysses and Beowulf to find literary works of fantasy that have been as influential to the world at large.

Harry Potter for sure. No contest.

LOTR distant second, and I hate Star Wars.

I'm 24 and like some others, I grew up with HP. When I was 12, Harry was 12. The next summer when the next book came out, I was 13 and Harry was 13. Maybe that has something to do with it.

I also wouldn't call HP books shallow at all. There's loads of meaning in them that I missed the first time I read them as a kid, and then when I re-read them after graduating from college (with a degree in literature), I was really impressed with how much more I got out of them than when I was younger.

Total Knob -- I haven't read the Crompton books; I'll look into them, though, thanks.

Wendell Gee -- Yes, The Lord of the Rings does borrow from a lot of other material as well; that's a good point. I'm aware that Tolkien does borrow somewhat from contemporary sources -- maybe those are more what you're refering to, if so the rest of this is irrelevant -- but the major connections I'm personally familiar with, to Anglo-Saxon, Biblical, and Classical texts, all play some meaningful role in Tolkien's work. He obviously engages the Biblical texts on an allegorical level and the extensive influence of Germanic and Classical literature, I think, gives the work a more historical feel while allowing Tolkien to address elements of those traditions in a way that ultimately reinforces the Christian themes in LOTR. For instance, by presenting readers with a very familiar ancient/medieval world that is not saved by its various Beowulfs and Odysseuses, but by its Christs. That's how I see it anyway.

I think this is different than the practice most modern fantasy writers -- including Rowling -- engage in: mimicking those elements of Tolkien's work that lend it its popular appeal in order to tap into a proven money making formula.

Star Wars by a landslide. Yes, only the first 3. The prequels felt like I was watching cartoons.....almost like watching advanced Roger Rabbit stuff, but I couldn't get stoned.

In a related question, what is nerdier Marching Band or Chess Club?

If you are talking about just the movies, "Star Wars" is a classic in a way that the other two will never be. But if you are talking about the overall stories, LOTR is serious literature in a way that HP is not, and which Star Wars never even tries to be.

The HP and LOTR movies did a lot to raise pop-culture consciousness of the books on which they were based, but at the end of the day, I don't foresee an ad in 30+ years from either one comparable to the recent Jetta commercial with the little kid in the Vader suit. Not a single word of dialogue, and they can just assume that every viewer in America will instantly understand based on just the theme song and the outfit.

The answer is ... Back to the Future

Harry Potter sucks - I'll admit I've never read nor seen the movies, I only saw about 4 minutes of one of them and it was terrible. The original Star Wars would finish 2nd in my voting as it is incredible with a novel way at looking at old ideas: the only bad thing about them are the Ewoks - too gimicky; however Han Solo, compensates well for them. Vader is just the best movie villian out there; and Yoda is the ultimate kung fu instructor. Lord of the Rings are very solid movies; however, they suck compared to the books.

another average american wrote:

Harry Potter for sure. No contest.

LOTR distant second, and I hate Star Wars.

I'm 24 and like some others, I grew up with HP. When I was 12, Harry was 12. The next summer when the next book came out, I was 13 and Harry was 13. Maybe that has something to do with it.

I also wouldn't call HP books shallow at all. There's loads of meaning in them that I missed the first time I read them as a kid, and then when I re-read them after graduating from college (with a degree in literature), I was really impressed with how much more I got out of them than when I was younger.

Same thing - I'm a little younger than this guy, but Harry and I were always within a year or two of being the same age. I also love Star Wars, but I'm giving the nod to Harry Potter. The LOTR movies were a little too long for my taste...I haven't tried reading one of the books since middle school. I didn't like them at the time, but maybe I should give them another try.

My thing with Harry Potter is that the characters are so relatable; much more so than I ever found Star Wars or LOTR to be.

It's interesting hearing the younger folks talk about HP, because I think I lot of us old heads read/saw HP and thought "nice story, but I've heard this before when it was called Star Wars."

Light Saber > Than homo stick wand

The Force > Than homo magic tricks

Sun Crusher > That Wedding Ring

There is a whole genre of "English" literature - Richmal Crompton, Enid Blyton, Geoffrey Willans - from the 1940's which the characters in Harry Potter mimic to a tee.

Then you've got the villans - try a comparison with Sir Arther Conan Doyle or Bram Stoker.

IMO, there isn't a problem with retelling an old story, as long as the author adds some imagination. Rowling is the rip-off artiste par excellence.

Total Knob wrote:

There is a whole genre of "English" literature - Richmal Crompton, Enid Blyton, Geoffrey Willans - from the 1940's which the characters in Harry Potter mimic to a tee.

So, the past mimicked the future? Interesting. Did they have a time machine?

Just say my name a few times.

movies: lotr

books: harry potter

overall (the series' as a whole - books/comics/movies/video games/universe etc): star wars

Generally speaking yes, but when you put them all on the Nerd Scale, Lord of the Rings is at the very top, followed about midway by Harry Potter, and then at the bottom (though still ON the Nerd Scale), you have Star Wars.Star Wars CAN define you as a nerd if you know all the back stories, how the droids work, and on and on, but if you were just alive in 1977 and went to see it and you LIKED it, that's not nerdy. It WAS a cinematic marvel in 1977, and absolutely everyone went to see it.Harry Potter appeals to kids and adult nerds pretty much solely, and Lord of the Rings is flat out Nerd City.

redux wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Star Wars for sure. The other two involve too big of a nerd factor, though you could be a casual fan of all three and not be a nerd, and even though Star Wars is the least nerdy of the three, you can for sure get too involved in that so that your nerdiness shows.

News Flash - All three are for nerds.

Diversification wrote:

Use any valid criterion.

I choose Star Wars. Its bemore of a lasting cultural icon. Also it was more fun to watch.

LOTR has ALREADY proven itself to be a lasting cultural icon--Star Wars has yet to prove that in my opinion. It hasn't been around that long really.

Flagpole wrote:

Generally speaking yes, but when you put them all on the Nerd Scale, Lord of the Rings is at the very top, followed about midway by Harry Potter, and then at the bottom (though still ON the Nerd Scale), you have Star Wars.

Star Wars CAN define you as a nerd if you know all the back stories, how the droids work, and on and on, but if you were just alive in 1977 and went to see it and you LIKED it, that's not nerdy. It WAS a cinematic marvel in 1977, and absolutely everyone went to see it.

Harry Potter appeals to kids and adult nerds pretty much solely, and Lord of the Rings is flat out Nerd City.

WTF are you talking about? Return of the King won 11 academy awards and broke all kinds of records. It won in every single category it was nominated. That just doesn't happen. People liked it. It remains a TOP 5 Box Office release of all time. The Lord of the Rings film trilogy is the highest grossing motion picture trilogy worldwide of all time, higher than the Star Wars trilogy and The Godfather films.

I am not even that big of a fan, but damn you're an idiot.

More nerds around in today's society than in 1977; flat out more people, and the percentage of nerds is greater too.The Star Wars franchise remains the most attended franchise in box office history...less money that Harry Potter (the franchise money making winner) because it started in 1977. EVERYONE saw Star Wars, nerd or not. Only nerds went willingly to see Lord of the Rings.

Name a few my just say times

Agree with everything except your Harry Potter comments. The first 4 in the Harry Potter movie trilogy were THE BEST. The last 3(or 4) kinda sucked....So opposite for me there ha ha. Oh and the books were ok on Harry Potter, not great.

Lord of the Rings is awesome. Coming from young person here. The movies were really good. Didn't get past the first 60 pages of LoTR book though. I dunno why..

I dunno much about Star Wars. I guess it's ok...

Vote goes to Lord of the Rings movie

and.....