"Lord of the Rings is much better than Harry Potter"

>"Lord of the Rings is much better than Harry Potter"

it was though

potter was good for the first few movies, then it turned into a teen romance soap opera

>"potter was good for the first few movies, then it turned into a teen romance soap opera"

"No!"

...

...

FAT

PINK

MAST

why didn't vengaboy use a harpoon gun as a wand and throw harry potter into the middle of the atlantic ocean?

An atheistic man wearing a silly hat has exclaimed how Lord of the Rings is much better than the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. A highly acclaimed trilogy of movies against a series of episodes following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

It's a fucking fact that Lord of the Rings is much better than Harry Potter. Lord of the Rings redefined fantasy literature, Harry Potter is just some cliche rubbish that panders to children and emotionally stunted adults.

This is what soyboys actually believe

fucking soyboys and bugmen

Lotr gave us The Last Ringbearer. HP gave us 9 labors of Sen Ayesli. The winner is clear.

Maybe too much soy in your diet?

>”No!”
Gets me every time

Skim her down my bugman.

Lets see, one is written by a guy who fought at the Somme versus some champaign socialist cunt. I wonder who wrote the better series.

>9 labors of Sen Ayesli
What?

better than harry potter really isn't saying much

Hey man, he may have spent months in the trenches in the worst battle in human history but she had to struggle on food stamps in a patriarchal world

>*compares the 2016 elections to that one time in harry potter*

>Somme
>worst battle on history

Umm no sweetie, Stalingrad is the real uber battle. At least at Somme you died in warm to moderate temps as opposed to just dying from the temperature in stalingrad

...

I'm so confused. Is that Russian Harry Potter fanfiction?

Exactly.

The camel's called Ginger. What'd Merhione mean by this?