Sure, sure, sure, Harry Pothead showed a lot of children how fun reading can be and all that crap, but seriously? How could you believe HP is better then LotR? The acting is horrible, the story is shaky, the characters are all whiny teenagers without a shred of good storytelling in them, and the effects could be replicated with a flashlight. Lord of the Rings on the other hand has great actors, a story who's pinky is better then almost any book you name, believable, understandable characters you can identify with, and huge medieval cities that were constructed just for the movie. The only thing I didn't really like was the actor that played Frodo.
I haven't read Harry potter though, only seen the movies. And I only read the first book of Lord of the Rings, so I'm judging on the movies.
The lotr movies are by far one of the best triolgys in the world and the third movie is one of the best movies in history.
The books of HP are a just a hit and nothing more, the Lotr books are a jewel of literature, they even have alphabets, maps, time lines, lenguages, a way of thinkign of a society, other books to expand the middle earth, various cultures, races etc.
And Tolkien is the father of modern fantasy, just look at wow and other fantasy related.
The wars are described perfectly well, you get all the action in your head...
Harry Potter is not so good. They only use spells. Boring. I'd rather have action and swords and blood and war than -Secumsempra! -Wingwardiem Leviosa!
