I like the Harry Potter books and films. From about book 4 they became less and less children’s books and more straightforward fantasy literature. I agree that they don’t have the same effect as LOTR. I think that a lot of it comes from the feeling you get with LOTR of it being part of a greater world. This man spent 50 years creating the languages and cultures of Middle-earth and then set his story at the transition point of his histories. Harry Potter is more whimsical and has a tendency to feel made up as it goes along. Run into a problem? Here’s a brand new magic spell to fix it. Not to say they aren’t fun, but they lack the gravitas of Tolkien.
This is my opinion, too. Harry Potter, as a franchise, doesn’t have a history behind it, let alone a mythology. It’s standard (but fairly good) young adult fantasy.
Middle-Earth has a history and a mythology behind it. Thousands and thousands of years worth. Yes, it’s all just as “made-up” as Rowling’s world is, but it’s made-up in so much more detail and there’s so much more structural integrity to it. Besides the published fiction, you have Tolkien’s Letters, which add detail and meaning to pretty much everything (except Tom Bombadil) in Arda. You have the HOMES books and their several earlier companions, like The Book of Lost Tales. There’s more of a feeling of reality and antiquity to Middle-Earth than to Rowling’s wizard world.
The Harry Potter books are also much more limited in scope. Tolkien’s work, as I noted, spans millenia. The sweep of the narratives is far broader and longer (in total; though the major narrative covers less than two years, it has a much longer history behind it) than Rowling’s milieu, which encompasses what is basically the childhood and adolescence of one person, and perhaps an additional decade or two prior. Harry Potter is a smaller world, plot-wise.
“Cat” was found in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, a collection of poems that included two about Tom, and a variety of other poems, some not really easily connected to Middle Earth. I haven’t read them in years (they were published as part of The Tolkein Reader, a great book that also had the story “Leaf by Niggle” and a play by Tolkein, “The Homecoming of Beortnoth Beorthelm’s Son.”
“Cat” never appears in the Lord of the Rings.
@jayjay: One of the aspects of the popularity of The Lord of the Rings that I think people overlook is that, while it is a fantasy story, there is really very little in the way of spells and magic. Thus, even though the setting is fantastical, it’s more myth than magic, and the individual can identify with it more. It’s fun to read about Harry Potter, or other magical people, but it’s hard to identify with them: at the most basic level, you or I can never BE Harry Potter, because we are just muggles. But we could be Strider, or Boromir, or Frodo, because they are just human heros.
And yes, the backdrop of interwoven complexity has a part in it. I remember being quite excited at the age of 12 when I finally was allowed to purchase and read LotR, having read The Hobbit the previous year, and opening the first book and seeing this map that extended the map from The Hobbit in almost every direction! It gave me a comfortable, familiar feeling, and as I read the books (I devoured them in about 5 days!), I remember wanting to know more and more about the world, so that when I got to the Appendices, I thought I had died and gone to Heaven. 
I never try to compare Harry Potter to LOTR, cause I know I’ll just offend Potter fans. And their opinions, of course, are just as valid as mine.
But, here’s an attempt to explain: For me the LOTR movies are more resonant for much the same reason the books are more resonant. They are better stories, better told. After the first Harry Potter book, which I enjoyed, I found myself just skimming the rest because they were so repetitive. And you always knew Harry would be threatened and would save the day. and as someone above said, it feels as if its made up as you go along. None of which is true for LOTR. Also, although I enjoy stories about children and adolescence, I think LOTR is a story about grown-ups. Although it doesn’t seem that way in the movies, Frodo is definitely depicted as an adult in the books. Overall, the stakes seem higher, everything just seems to matter more to me in LOTR, movies and books.
It’s funny…the Appendices (which most people seem to just skip) were almost more fascinating for me than the main narrative. They were the part of the trilogy that I read over and over and over. I wonder what we’d find if we took a poll of the Tolkien afficionados on the board on that question?
I think the best argument about casting Gary Oldman as Aragorn (aside from my guy instinct that says “You’ve got to be kidding! He’s so…little! And funny looking!”) is that Peter Jackson did his darndest to avoid casting actors who would overshadow the roles. No Sean Connery as Gandalf, etc. And I think that was the right decision. I think too many people would’ve looked at Gary Oldman and seen Gary Oldman.
As for the Harry Potter books/films, well, the first couple of films were not directed by a particularly noteworthy director, and that matters. Later films have been better. I watched Order of the Phoenix and my feeling upon leaving was “That was a game attempt by a bunch of talented filmmakers to make a decent movie out of what seemed like incredibly terrible source material.” Now, to put all my cards on the table, I don’t -like- Harry Potter. The stories seem contrived and simplistic, the faux Latin spell incantations irritate me at a very fundamental level, and I -hated- the first book with a passion. And before anyone steps in and says “They’re kids’ books! Cut them some slack!” I will counter with saying that there are children’s books that I -adore- and which make me cry every time I read them. The Harry Potter books are not worthy to walk in the footsteps of Prydain or The Dark is Rising.
So my not especially humble opinion on why the Harry Potter films aren’t as good as the LotR films is that it’s because their source material is rubbish. 
And yes, several people have pointed out why, in far less subjective ways, what the differences are. I just felt that the Harry Potter books had no soul.
Leaving aside any issues of source material, the LotR movies had not only great actors but excellent direction, writing, etc. The Harry Potter movies, while they had some truly excellent cast members, overall suffered in the direction and writing departments.
Ah, thanks. Either Foster got it wrong, or I misremembered.
It figures. I’m guessing it’s the thick end of thirty years since I last read TAoTB, which is why it didn’t especially register.
OTTOMH I can remember the following references to cats in LotR:
- The cat in the “Man in the Moon” song
- A cat owned by Barliman Butterbur (one of the customers enjoying the above song said that Barley ought to “learn his cat the fiddle”)
- The cats of Queen Beruthiel
- Gollum protesting at Sam and Frodo jumping on him “like cats on poor mices”
- Sauron allowing victims to be tossed to Shelob as a man tosses a dainty to his cat (" ‘his cat’, he calls her, yet she owns him not").
There may be others. 
A cat is also mentioned in one of the riddles exchanged by Biblo and Gollum.
Well, not in the riddle, but in the solution (cat gets the bones). 
Duly noted. And yes, I know it’s spelled “Bilbo.” :smack:
Oh yes. Especially since to begin with I had the one-volume edition with only Appendix D, Aragorn & Arwen. All the interesting backstory, calendar, alphabets and Tale of Years had to wait.
Sorry to bump this year-old thread, but I wanted to thank everyone in it once again for leading me through the LOTR films and increasing my understanding of and enthusiasm for them the whole way.
You guys are now sort of grandparents – because now I’ve performed the same service and introduced my sister to FOTR this weekend. And she liked it (at least after the first half, which she felt was too much build-up). To understand what an accomplishment this is, you must know that my sister is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo not a fantasy fan. I think the only thing even approaching fantasy she’s enjoyed (to a degree) was Star Wars, and I’m pretty sure she only saw that when it originally came out during junior high. The only reason she agreed to watch FOTR this time was because it was my birthday and I forced her to do my bidding.
Now, her agreeing to watch the other two films was contingent on whether she liked the first. At the end of the film (I showed her the Extended Cut, btw), she said: “Okay, I’ll watch the next one.” VICTORY!
I fully expect her to love the next two films more than FOTR, because she’s invested in the characters. That’s pretty much what happened to me, anyway.
Anyway, thanks! I love re-reading the thread and enjoying your answers to my amusingly ignorant questions all over again.
Good luck - second viewings always kick off new questions.
Yes, they did – but my second viewing was two viewings ago.
Hrm, mayhaps I’ll plan out a day-long viewing of all three films when my boyfriend is in town for the holidays…
Gosh, I think picking a day when your boyfriend is out of town would work better for that…
It always makes me happy to help, even if only in some small way, someone else discover the genius and passion of Prof. Tolkien. Here’s to much happy reading and viewing for you both.