Lord of the Rings Trilogy is Better than the Harry Potter Trilogy

My opponent was supposed to post his argument in round 1, but he didn't. Since he failed to do so, I will therefore allow him to make a final rebuttal in round 5 since I will be going first. I really would have rather my opponent go first, but this obviously isn't going to happen. I also apologize for titling the debate to place Harry Potter as a Trilogy, it's not, and I've received comments on this clarifying that its a Heptology. Anyway, I still think Lord of the Rings beats Harry Potter any day for the following reasons: First off, Lord of the Rings received much better reviews that Harry Potter. For example Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 2 received the highest rating of all in the entire series of Harry Potter films on Matacritic. It was given 87% on Metacritic, while all three Lord of the Rings movies beat it, receiving 92% for The Fellowship of the Ring, 88% for The Two Towers, and 94% for The Return of the King. On Rotten Tomatoes it was a bit close, but Lord of the Rings still had the edge. Here, the three best review percentages given for Harry Potter films were 96%, 91% and 88%, while Lord of the Rings triumphed with 96%, 94% and 91%. So my first argument is that Lord of the Rings passed the tests of the critics with more distinction than Harry Potter films. Secondly, six of the Harry Potter films were nominated for a total of 12 Academy Awards but didn't win any, while Lord of the Rings films won 17 of them. Regarding Lord of the Rings we are told: "The films were critically acclaimed and heavily awarded... The series received wide praise for its innovative special and visual effects... The three films together were nominated for a total of 30 Academy Awards, of which they won 17, a record for any movie trilogy (the 3 nominations for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey brings the series' total to 33 nominations). The Fellowship of the Ring earned thirteen nominations, the most of any film at the 74th Academy Awards, winning four. The Return of the King won in every category in which it was nominated, setting the current Oscar record for the highest clean sweep, and its 11 Academy Awards won ties the record held by Ben-Hur and Titanic (though both of those films had additional nominations that they lost out on). The Return of the King became only the second sequel to win the Oscar for Best Picture (after The Godfather Part II) and the first and only fantasy film to receive this honor, though this has been widely perceived as an award by proxy for the entire series (the first two films were also nominated for Best Picture)." http://www.google.com...(film_series)&ei=Ya7jU-O6JI6nyASW-IDoCA&usg=AFQjCNEypidHywLr_oC1D26WNKn0fbUVhg These awards are the evidence of being a good movie in various aspects of movie production. Harry Potter can make no such boast. Third, is character development. In Lord of the rings, the character's maintain the same appearance and personality without any abrupt changes throughout the series without explanation as part of the film itself. In contrast, there has been disappointment among Harry Potter fans about the complete change in Dumbledor's character and appearance after the second film. Notice how one movie fan puts it: "The Harry Potter films had a very steady continuity between the first and second films, but once Chris Colombus left the helm, why did Alfonso Cuaron change the character of Albus Dumbledore so drastically? First, he recast the role with Michael Gambon, who looks nothing like Richard Harris, let alone the Dumbledore described in the Potter books; then he dressed him as a stereotypical warlock with bedraggled, grey (not silver/white) hair and beard with robes that look like they were tailored by Filch - not to mention, that random beard tie! Even Gambon's accent was different from Richard Harris'. What also bothers me is how out of place an unkempt Dumbledore looks next to the graceful, majestic symbol of immortality and hope that is Fawkes, the Phoenix. Fawkes is Dumbledore's animal familiar, like Nagini is to Voldemort ... Didn't Cuaron consider how silly these characters would look together in future films? I understand that each director has their own vision, but I would like to know what the creative process was that lead to Michael Gambon in the role of Dumbledore and his completely different portrayal of the character." The fact is that "Gambon has not deliberately aimed to follow the specific characteristics of Dumbledore, as referenced in the books, but rather developed an acting style in which he combines his own personality with that of his character." http://www.google.com... This is very unprofessional and doesn't make for a good movie when people are accustomed to one character and then see someone else playing the role, and not doing justice to the part. He didn't even try to follow the Dumbledore fans already knew and loved but replaced it with his own personality. This is why another source says "Some also feel the series has a "disjointed" feel due to the changes in directors, as well as Michael Gambon's interpretation of Albus Dumbledore differing from that of Richard Harris." http://www.google.com...(film_series)&ei=KrnjU5HAI4OXyASK2YFg&usg=AFQjCNGu95IegNpPqRyM_0YyjbAs8JsIZQ&bvm=bv.72676100,d.aWw No such disjointment is experienced by fans of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, because this film doesn't have such terrible character development. Fourth is originality and imagination. By far, Lord of the Rings was more imaginative and original, as Tolkien created entire new languages for the Elves, Orcs, etc, where Harry Potter had no such thing, just plain English right through. The scenery in Harry Potter was mostly the same everywhere he went, but in Lord of the Rings there is brilliant imagination where entirely different backgrounds, types of buildings and clothing are used for Sauron's lair, Rivendell where the Elves were, the White Tower an other cities of Middle Earth, Cherioth-Ungul where the giant spider Shelob lived, the Shire of the Hobbit, the habitat of the dwarfs, and the forests and mountains. Each people and place had distinct apparel, language and surroundings which was more creative. Just look at the difference between the fire-and-smoke wipe of the Balrock and the flame of Undun Galdolf used. Compare this with Harry Potter's wand versus Voldermort's - the only difference was the color of the light emitted, and most people had white light. Sauron appears as a giant eye made of fire, that's very unusual and original. Voldermort was simply pale, not very original since all zombies and many vampires etc have a similar appearance in movies. Fifth, Lord of the rings had more odds to overcome, more terrible bad guys, like Nazgul birds swooping down from the sky, giant spiders, a being of fire and smoke wielding a firey whip, and legions upon legions of orcs. Sam's sword fight with a giant spider, and Gandolf's fight with the Balrog make Potter's battle with Valdermort seem tame. So we have more serious bad guys. Sixth, there was more drama in Lord of the Rings, such as the love story that played out between Aragon and Lady Ariel, Frodo's turning against his best friend Sam via Smeagol's deception, his inner battle against the power of the ring, and so on. I have lots more reasons to add why Lord of the Rings is better but I'm out of space, over to Con.