HP2 is such a shameless copy of LOTR2

[LadySnape]

This is what a friend of mine, "Destiny" has to say on the topic:

Well, let's see, where to start.

If we would like to deem every writer who has ever used (and has been published) a talking or living tree - with elves with big eyes and ears - in a *fantasy* series - in their 2nd novel. I'd say we'd be drowned in series that could fall into the description.

As much as I admire LOTR's writer - he did not invent these things. Talking tree's have been around for ages, as have evil creatures with Giant eyes.

However I think the largest argument has already been said: Dobey is *not* a transformed dark little goblin. He's a house elf. And it was imperitive they introduce him for the 3rd book. Dobey was a "semi-large" character - the whomping willow however, carried a very small part in the beginning.

The willow plays a large role in that it's a hiding place, which is also important in the 3rd novel. The use of these characters in her second book were mostly for use to set up the 3rd book.

Have you read all of the books? Just curious...

Your argument could place fantasy genra movies dating back to Wizard of the Oz.

You know - talking violent trees - midgets (or should we call them Hobbits to further your ridiculous notion?) and a big evil witch at the end.

MANY stories follow this format, and as great as his novels were - LOTR's was NOT the first to create these types of characters.

The Harry Potter series is *incredibly* creative and original. Have you ever heard of anything remotely near the game of Quiddich? The specifics of all the classes they take - Hagrid and his strange and violent creatures? The hidden magical alleys completely separate from the human world yet still connected?

All of the fun little inventions... it's all very original.

A giant spider is no original character in any story, so that point is completely moot. "IT - part 2" big spider. Come on, let's not be so picky. The stories have nothing similar about it. I've read both, and I would NEVER compare the two.

Lord of the Rings is far more dark than Harry Potter, and the characters are entirely different.

But the basic format of a good fantasy novel includes: Good guy, good guys friends, good guys mentors, Bad guy, bad guys friends, driving force.

Both stories have this. And in a fantasy novel - wizards, elfs, dwarfs, talking animals, spells and potions, new forms of creatures/humans, demons - this is all normal. Stop being so picky and enjoy the book for what it is: FANTASY.

[Strawberry]

Thiers blackstream's reply too, Lady Snape.

His was pretty good.

[LadySnape]

Gothic Angel's Response:

Why is it that every good book series has to be plageurized (spelling?)? I'm getting really sick of it all. How in the WORLD does Harry Potter resemble LotR? Two COMPLETELY different storylines. I don't see ANY resemblance between the two book series. It's very much alright to get ideas from other book series. It's only wrong if suddenly characters were to pop up in HP with the names Frodo Baggins, Legolas, Pippin, etc. But as for storyline plageurizing? Get a life and just enjoy the books without feeling the need to sully the authors or the books. x.x;

As for things like talking trees and whatnot? Like Destiny said, they've been around alot longer and, as great of an author as J.R.R. Tolkien is, I doubt he's responsible for their creation.
Sorry if that's harsh, but that's my vent on the whole thing.

[JRRRowling]

Thanks LadySnape, I appreciate the exchange. You've brought up some interesting points - I think as a whole, your arguments do seem compelling. However allow me to reply on just some of them for good measure.

1) I wouldn't call her stories *incredibly* original, creative yes - but not incredibly so. The whole notion of secret parallel worlds accessible through a secret portal is very similar to The Faraway Tree by Enid blyton. Magician Schools have also been around for a long time in fantasy stories and games like Dungeons & Dragons.

2) as for comparisons between LOTR and HP - well even movie critics did it subconsciously. People made very obvious comparisons between the two trolls in the first movies of the two series. People are obviously going to make the comparison between the living trees, gollum vs dobby and the giant spiders - except where in the first books there was one similarity, this time there are three. Comparisons are very natural - whether fair or not.

3) I find Quidditch fun to watch, but only because I love speed. I find the rules of the game really really stupid. I wonder even what's the point of the other team members if Harry keeps winning simply by catching one ball and voiding the efforts of the entire opposing team, and his own teammembers. It's not a team effort - the team doesn't help him to catch the flying ball - he just goes after it alone! That's a really weird thing to do in a TEAM sport! If I was a team member in the game, I would find it extremely frustrating to score goals only to find my efforts pointless and irrelevant when someone catches the flying ball, my efforts would not have contributed in any way to the outcome of the game.

A better game would be to make every teammember a potentially EQUAL & valid contributor to the outcome of the game - like BasketBall, soccer, baseball etc - every member of the team can potentially be a star of the game - you don't have one super guy who can just win the game by himself regardless of what the other teammembers do!!

I reckon there hasn't been a better team game invented of late since whoever invented Basketball. I would love nothing than for some genius to come up with a better tactical team sport. Quidditch is NOT remotely clever, and I find it a lame attempt at inventing a sport for the reasons given above. If Rowling had really sat down and examined the PRINCIPLES of team sport and come up with something truly fantastic, I would be the first to congratulate her creativity. But I see Quidditch and think to myself - well I can really come up with something BETTER, and I do not respect any talent that I see cannot be better than what I can invent. I see Basketball - and I think wow, whoever invented this game is very clever. I see Quidditch and think "lame-o".

How would you feel if the whole world was so excited about the movie "Hard Target" by Jean Claude Van Damme, and gave it an Oscar for best film? You would be dumbfounded at how such a cr@p film could get an Oscar, and you would probably post on some forums trying to ask - what the heck do people actually see in this film??

This is exactly how I feel about some of Rowlings work, of course Rowling's work is not cr@p - I am just using Hard Target as a hyperbole. However I do find Quidditch to be very stupid in principle, and quite frankly it affects the way I see the rest of her talent also. Sure - her stories ARE fun, they ARE entertaining, but nothing more. She ain't a genius like she's treated.

[Scellanis]

dobby versus gollum:

dobby is GOOD, POWERFULLY MAGICAL, is doing things TO SAVE HARRY POTTER AND ALL HIS PEOPLE

gollum is EVIL basically, has SELFISH INTENTIONS, is PLAIN ORDINARY NON MAGICAL HOBBIT TYPE CREATURE.

trolls:

hp troll: in the book it has quite a large part....the same as in the movie
lotr troll: in the book...it sticks a foot through the door and gets it stabbed and never reappears.....ive just read that.....

if ur gonna compare movies then ur arguments rnt valid...since the movies r not identicle to the books and both were books before the movie and neither author wrote the movie scripts i should imagine...well tolkien definately didnt....

quidditch is a team sport...if u ever read book 3 ull see that the final game is a huge team effort....for they have to win by 200 points (to get the quidditch cup) and catching the snitch only gives 150 so harry couldnt catch the snitch unless the rest of his team had scored the 50 points and harry also couldnt let Draco catch the snitch at any time.....if uve only watched the movie u wont realise that every house plays every house once.....

again in book four in the quidditch world cup...ireland win the game....bulgaria catch the snitch.....quidditch can be a team sport.....it depends on the teams and previous games

and anyway....even those 2 games r a team effort...the rest of the team works to keep the other team from getting more than 150 (the snitch) in the lead because if that were to happen then catching the snitch (finishes the match) loses them the game.....

[Scellanis]

i have a question JRRRowling:

Have you ever read any of the Harry Potter books...there are currently 4 released and from your arguments so far id say you havent read any of them and yet your calling their author a plagarist??!!!

also Have you ever read LotR because from your arguments im seriously begining to doubt it

all your arguments r based on the movies....and if u want reasons why the movies are not true to the books then im quite happy to sit and give you them.....and if all your arguments are based on the movie then they rnt valid...the movie scripts werent written by the authors (i assume jk rowling didnt anyway) but tolkien definately didnt and i know his son chris didnt either which means the the movie isnt true....the characters r messed, a major part of the plot is missing (barrowdowns) and characters r missing....u cant presume to base ur arguments on that now can u......

so HAVE U EVER READ THE BOOKS??? i really dont think u have...not even lotr....ur basic knowledge or the books is appauling if u have

[LadySnape]

3) I find Quidditch fun to watch, but only because I love speed. I find the rules of the game really really stupid. I wonder even what's the point of the other team members if Harry keeps winning simply by catching one ball and voiding the efforts of the entire opposing team, and his own teammembers. It's not a team effort - the team doesn't help him to catch the flying ball - he just goes after it alone! That's a really weird thing to do in a TEAM sport! If I was a team member in the game, I would find it extremely frustrating to score goals only to find my efforts pointless and irrelevant when someone catches the flying ball, my efforts would not have contributed in any way to the outcome of the game.

A better game would be to make every teammember a potentially EQUAL & valid contributor to the outcome of the game - like BasketBall, soccer, baseball etc - every member of the team can potentially be a star of the game - you don't have one super guy who can just win the game by himself regardless of what the other teammembers do!!

I reckon there hasn't been a better team game invented of late since whoever invented Basketball. I would love nothing than for some genius to come up with a better tactical team sport. Quidditch is NOT remotely clever, and I find it a lame attempt at inventing a sport for the reasons given above. If Rowling had really sat down and examined the PRINCIPLES of team sport and come up with something truly fantastic, I would be the first to congratulate her creativity. But I see Quidditch and think to myself - well I can really come up with something BETTER, and I do not respect any talent that I see cannot be better than what I can invent. I see Basketball - and I think wow, whoever invented this game is very clever. I see Quidditch and think "lame-o".

As much as I don't want to, I have to agree with you considering Quidditch. Although I enjoy watching it on the movie and reading about it in the books, it is pretty pointless and there really is no need for a "team"... to an extent. But I think that is what Rowling wanted. As simple as it is, I find a lot of kids and even adults who have read the books don't fully understand it. (Or didn't until seeing the movie) And a lot of them find the Quidditch Chapters boring.

Anyway, Harry is the star. He is the Seeker, the best, catches the snitch all the time... that's all aimed at kids. I don't think any of the kids or readers in general care about the captain or the Chasers or Beaters. They are reading it so they can be excited when Harry catches the Snitch. Because the whole book centers around Harry. He is the hero, so he pretty much is the best at everything.

My point of view? Well, Harry has had a tough life with the Dursleys to put it mildly. Rowling making Harry the most important Player on the "team" (for lack of a better name for it) gives him more fame... finally the negleted young boy is good at something and earns the respect and admiration of his classmates. Something he has never had before. But truthfully, I don't think anyone cares at all about the other players. It all centers around Harry.

Rowling had to make a player (Seeker) that stood out from the rest. It would be a pretty damn boring book if Harry were made a beater or chaser.

Please don't call me a hypocrite. I am just trying to see it from JRRRowling's point of view. The main reason I love Quidditch is because of the way Harry felt when he first mounted a broom.

[JRRRowling]

I see your point about Quidditch. Fair enough. I didn't realize that you needed 200 points to win, I seem to have remembered in the first movie, they said that if you catched the snitch, you won the game. Although, here's a variation that might work:

1) there is a special goal post, then when one of the balls goes through that special goal post, the snitch is released. However, before the snitch is released, the snitch catcher joins in with the rest of the team.

This way - if a team is losing badly, they can choose as a team (and here is where the captain comes in) whether to release the snitch, and of course the winning team can try and stop them from approaching the special goal post.

2) Catching the snitch is worth say 50 or 75 points. But after it's caught, the snitch can be released again by scoring a goal in the special goal post explained in point one.


- I'll be honest. One of the things I did not like about the HP story, is precisely because HP seems to be the star of everything. There seems to be no effort. I wished that he worked himself toward being the best snitch catcher, rather than automatically becoming it. It would have made the stories more believable. It doesn't seem that HP earnt anything, everything is just given to him on a platter.

I sympathize with Draco's frustration that HP always gets the attention. Although obviously Draco is very devious and selfish - surely effort has to account for something! I can't relate to the HP stories because HP gets so much favouritism from McConaughy, Dumbledore, Hagrid and every other person. HP is not a rags to riches story, where the raggidy guy works himself up to power, but HP is a Cinderella story, where HP just "inherits" all this power and influence without having to lift a finger.

Anyway, my point is that Rowling *could* have achieved her purpose by making HP good at the game Quidditch, but at the same time - he should have worked himself up to the top like every other super star at sport. Michael Jordan had to work hard to get himself to the top along with every other NBA basketballer! And Rowling *could* have made the Quidditch game nail-biting by not letting the snitch be worth so much, and letting the other teams win once in a while and HP stuff completely up like a human being once in a while! At least it wouldn't be as predictable as the WWE!

----------
Have I read the HP books or the Tolkien books? To the former, I read some chapters, to the latter I have read it - but that was some time ago so I forget some of the details like the Troll. I didn't mention the troll to support my argument - I only mentioned it to show an example how normal folks readily make comparisons between movies/books - it's a quite natural phenomena.

cheers.

[Scellanis]

I see your point about Quidditch. Fair enough. I didn't realize that you needed 200 points to win, I seem to have remembered in the first movie, they said that if you catched the snitch, you won the game. Although, here's a variation that might work:

no that was just one particular game.....were gryffindor play slytherin in the last match but slytherin lead the quidditch cup by 200 points to gryffindor because harry fell off his broomstick and failed to catch the snitch against hufflepuff so gryffindor had to catch up.....if ull notice quidditch isnt the harry success story u think....so far with harry as seeker gryffindor has won quidditch cup once in book 3....they failed in book 1 as harry was in hospital over last game so slytherin won, book 2 the quidditch was cancelled due to hermione getting petrified and book 4 the quidditch is cancelled for the triwizard tournament.....

----------
Have I read the HP books or the Tolkien books? To the former, I read some chapters, to the latter I have read it - but that was some time ago so I forget some of the details like the Troll. I didn't mention the troll to support my argument - I only mentioned it to show an example how normal folks readily make comparisons between movies/books - it's a quite natural phenomena.

cheers.

um...if u havent read the books that the authr writes how can u call the author a plagarist?? considering ur criticizing her writting it seems very unfair that u should be so evil and nasty about her writing if u havent actually read all of her writing...

i myself have read all the books many times, including the two text books on quidditch and magical beasts and i have also read lotr at least 4 times and the silmarillion and hobbit.....i really dont think its fair that u critiscise someones writting if u havent actually read it

and as for the point mentioned in a previous post on magic portals....im just wondering...who came first...Enid Blyton with that book ive never read...or C S Lewis and the chronicles of narnia (portal in a wardobe, station, school....) who i know was friends with tolkien so must have been tolkiens time.... or the guy that writes alice in wonderland (mirror and rabbit hole) thats lewis carrol isnt it...

[Sirius Black]

Em.. let's see:

HP2:
1) has a grey skinned bald elfish creature with big eyes
2) has a talking tree
3) has a giant spider

Lord of the Rings 2
1) has a grey skinned bald elfish creature with big eyes
2) has a talking tree
3) has a giant spider

It's almost as if Rowling was guided by an invisable plagiarist ghost to copy essential characters of the Tolkien epic.

Although Harry Potter may be *entertaining* what I don't like is legions of little kiddies adoring Rowling thinking she is a genius, when all she has done is copy every single famous myth/fairy-tale in the English world. Rowling has copied Tolkien, the story of Cinderella and Enid Blyton amongst others.

Where Tolkien or Enid Blyton were pioneers in creating fantastic worlds - Rowling is such a blatant copy-cat. She just doesn't deserve all the credit she is getting.

Sure, I know some of you Rowling worshippers will get angry - but you have to admit she IS a clone.

First - The whomping willow does not talk.
Second - where are these "grey skinned bald elfish creature with big eyes"? Are you talking about Orcs? because they are not bald. Idiot.
Third - there is no LotR2! It's all one book split into three volumes. Idiot.

It's pretty flimsy ground saying that J.K. Rowling copied from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. I'd believe it more if, say, she had hobbits running around with the names Frodo, Pippin, Sam, and Meriodoc, trying to keep a Ring from an evil lord.

Talking and moving trees, elves, and giant spiders did not start with Tolkien. They have been around in legends and myths and other stories for quite some time. So get over yourself.

[Shadow]

Okay, here is my sister. She really want to give her opinion on this.

Hello o.k. I'm Shadow's sister. Those of you RQ may know me as Meriadoc from RQ. First of all I agree that the two pink bald dudes look alike. But they are not the same thing. Dobby (from HP) is a house elf and Goluum (from LOTR) is a dememnted hobbit. Second of all, Treebeard is not a tree. He's an ENT!!! Ents are not exactly talking walking trees. They're a little more complex than that. they are a living species that look like trees. But they are one of the oldest peoples on middle earth. and the giant spider is not even gonna be in the second LOTR movie. and if you can only think of 3 things that are the same then it's probably just a coincedence (I can't spell). Two Towers is a continuation of FOTR and is about the union between two towers in Middle earth (hence the name)and I'm not sure I haven't read the book but Chamber of Secrets is about a chamber of secrets. And plus, why are on earth are you judgeing the two?
I mean LOTR is an ancient epic and HP is a more modern epic. And further more a lot of fantasy things have things in common. Tolkien was considered the 'grandfather' of fantasy. but that doesn't mean they're the same thing. So would ya mind not critiquing Harry Potter based on LOTR standards.

Makes her piont, huh?

[Sirius Black]

Second of all, Treebeard is not a tree. He's an ENT!!!

You don't hear that too often. "He's not a tree. He's an ENT!" ^__^

Not trying to make fun, just the way she said it tickled me.

[Shadow]

That's okay.

[Scellanis]

Second of all, Treebeard is not a tree. He's an ENT!!!

You don't hear that too often. "He's not a tree. He's an ENT!" ^__^

Not trying to make fun, just the way she said it tickled me.

um...ive been saying that all along....my very first post i said that...not in those words though...hehehe...

at last...somebody who agrees with me on the bald thingies and trees

[hermionegirl09]

I'm totally lost because I've never read Lord of the RIngs.