Lord of the rings vs harry potter.

Rebuttal of Pro’s Case. 1. Harry potter has "stolen" many parts of the Lotr story It would appear that Pro’s first argument and the majority of his rebuttal rest on the premise that something being original makes it better. This is false. The Model T [. http://1.bp.blogspot.com...] is not better than all the cars that succeeded it, the first Blackberry is not better than all the smart phones that succeeded it, mankind’s first clothing garment is not better than YSL or Armani—I can give plenty of examples. Not only is his premise false, but his argument that LOTR was “original” is also false. Tolkien based his Elvish language on Finnish; the concept of ‘Middle Earth’, various names, including Gandalf and all the dwarves, and the Mirkwood Forest Bilbo travelled were taken from “Edda”; and the ring that Harry Potter supposedly copied from LOTR? Wagner did it first in the 19th century. For a full list of everything LOTR/The Hobbit “stole”, please visit the following website. [. http://www.sacred-texts.com...] Harry Potter having some similarities to LOTR does not make the story unoriginal. Like every writer to ever exist, JK Rowling’s writing is influenced by various things. Yes, even Tolkien was influenced by others [. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_influences]. 2. The Lotr film series won more academy awards than the Harry Potter film series. It is well known that the Oscar’s have genre bias and there are many people who deserve to win, and don’t. Steven Spielberg wasn’t even nominated for best director (Jaws) in 1976 [. http://roblacy.writingonlineatcsu.net...]. Conversely, there are many Oscar winners who didn’t deserve to win. For example, Driving Miss Daisy (which somehow won Best Makeup? ) won Best Picture and was nominated over Do the Right Thing in 1989; Tom Hanks (Forrest Gump) won over Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption), John Travolta (Pulp Fiction), and Paul Newman (Nobody’s Fool), for Best Actor in 1994; and Crash won Best Picture in 2005. [. http://movies.about.com...][http://www.timeout.com...] I’m not saying that the LOTR didn’t deserve any of its Academy Awards, but the claim cannot be made that the Academy is the end-all-be-all judgement of whether or not a movie is “the best”. Regardless, LOTR only won Best Picture for The Return of the King, and being a better movie does not make a series better. 3. The Harry potter film series has differences between some of the movies. I really do not think that this can be a serious contention. Alfonzo Cuaron (the director of HP3) had no control over Richard Harris dying. Michael Gambon’s portrayal of Dumbledore may have differed, but he is an actor with artistic license. The differences in CGI and makeup can be explained by having better technology, considering the movies took over a decade to make. Is my opponent suggesting that as technology rapidly changed over the course of 10+ years, the movies should have remained the same? Additionally, the different directing styles made sense, given that the books/movies get progressively darker and more mature, and considering that the 11-year-olds who initially saw HP1 in theatres would have been in their 20s by the time HP8 was in theatres. Despite these minor changes, HP was able to retain its core cast over the course of 8 movies and a decade, which is a pretty remarkable feat. My Case 1. Harry Potter made more money. LOTR being one novel is irrelevant if it was published on 3 different dates. The fact is one reader would have to purchase the same novel 3 times, thus inflating the number of books sold. Even if it can be sold as one book, it can also be sold as 3. Being less popular between book publication and movie releases is also irrelevant. The fact is the Harry Potter series did make more money. 2. Character depth. My opponent has claimed character depth is irrelevant if the character isn’t original. I have shown in my rebuttal of his first case why being first is irrelevant. The fact is, JK Rowling takes these characters to greater heights and gives them life, while Tolkien’s characters are one dimensional. The Hero My opponent ignores the first 5 books and the stories within them. The Best Friend My opponent admits that Ron was “Sam-like” for the first 3 books only. My argument is about depth, which is created in the following 4 books. The Sage Advice My opponent’s argument rests on originality—In addition to refuting this notion earlier, my previous round did show how Gandalf and Dumbledore were different in depth. He does not address their differences. The Villain Again, Pro has not addressed the differences I pointed out between Voldemort and Sauron. Pro does not even address the other villains I mentioned in the series, simply because I didn’t say “villains”. Notice how “support characters” is plural, but I only mentioned one. That is because I am listing character devices and not the characters themselves. He has effectively dropped my points about Snape and Slytherin House. Support Characters My opponent mentions two out of dozens and dozens of support characters in Harry Potter and again mentions originality. [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] If you have a big enough sample size (the dozens of support characters) you will find similarities anywhere. He completely drops my point about Neville. 3. Themes While LOTR may have some of the same themes as HP, the themes in HP are “deeply entrenched in the whole plot” and “grow organically” [. http://www.mugglenet.com...]. My argument is that they are more thought-provoking. Each and every subplot or story in HP is filled with elements for the reader to ponder. They are too numerous for me to list. I’ve listed a few in my previous round and thus far, my contention has been unaddressed. 4. Plot The LOTR does require you to read every volume, and each volume was made into its own movie. The first movie does not resolve the major plot that was brought in the beginning. The three movies are meant to be watched as a whole and only do you get a resolution at the end. The first HP movie has a beginning, a middle, and an end—a full story arc that comes to a resolution (Voldemort is thwarted from getting the Philosopher’s Stone). The same can be said of the next 5 HP movies. Conclusion My opponent claims focusing on details helps better put you into character—despite this, LOTR’s plot is not as intricate as the Harry Potter series, and the characters still do not have the depth of the Harry Potter characters. I have dismissed Pro’s first contention that something being first makes it better. I have also shown how LOTR has borrowed elements from other stories. I have shown how the Academy Awards is not definitive proof that a movie is better. I have also dismissed the notion that the HP movies having differences makes LOTR better. Pro has not refuted the fact that the Harry Potter series has made more money. He has also not addressed the depth issue with LOTR characters. He mentions similarities, which I have already shown is irrelevant, and ignores the differences, which was the point of my argument. My opponent has also said that LOTR has some of the same themes as Harry Potter, but again, does not address my point, which is that in HP they are greater and more thought-provoking. And lastly, Harry Potter having a more intricate plot, and each book and movie (save for the last 2 movies, which were made from the same book) having its own beginning, middle, and end, has not been addressed. I hope that, thus far, I have brought forth compelling reasons for why the Harry Potter series is better than LOTR, and I look forward to my opponent’s rebuttal.