movies/tv Harry Potter vs Hunger Games

[Silver Sun 40]

Alright. So we have Harry Potter- been around for a while, awesome plot, amazing characters, and magic. I mean who doesnt love that? Then there is the Hunger Games- recent but not brand new, hot guys/girls, awesome plot and battle scenes. Tell me what ya think!

[duidamasterXD 9,626]

Are we comparing the movies, the books, or overall? I don't feel like it's fair to compare the movies, since the Hunger Games has only released one of them.

 

As for overall, I thought that Harry Potter had more interesting and complex characters, a deeper and better thought out story and was just generally more enjoyable. Granted HP had more books and therefore more time to give us those things, but I still rate it higher.

 

I'm a pretty big fan of both though.

[Standard User 2,127]

Hunger Games: very interesting premise, ruined by the love story.

Harry Potter: started off awesome, ruined by the love story.

Romance screws over everything.

[ping111 124]

The entire Hunger Games series was totally ruined by Mockingjay. That is possibly one of the worst "popular" books I've ever read. Then again, I've never read Twilight...

 

Harry Potter was and is my favourite series of books. I love it in so many ways, that I can't even begin to describe it.

 

Harry Potter Avada Kedavra's Katniss's dumb bow.

[duidamasterXD 9,626]

The entire Hunger Games series was totally ruined by Mockingjay. That is possibly one of the worst "popular" books I've ever read. Then again, I've never read Twilight...

 

Harry Potter was and is my favourite series of books. I love it in so many ways, that I can't even begin to describe it.

 

Harry Potter Avada Kedavra's Katniss's dumb bow.

My sister was actually mad that I let her read Mockingjay, never mind that she wouldn't have listened to me if I told her not to.

 

And yeah, avoid the Twilight like the plague.

[Silverwisp the Bard 2,353]

Alright. So we have Harry Potter- been around for a while, awesome plot, amazing characters, and magic. I mean who doesnt love that? Then there is the Hunger Games- recent but not brand new, hot guys/girls, awesome plot and battle scenes. Tell me what ya think!

If you have to put "hot guys/girls" into why something is good, its generally not a good sign....

Anyway, when word got out about the series getting movies, I sat down and read the first book.

It is okay but nothing great:

The premise has been done a hundred times before (Lord of the Flies, Battle Royal), there are some stupid aspects of the setting (Names changed but other words stayed the same, the government has no real reason to hold the games and thus encourage martial upbringing in the people they suppress) and there are plotholes that just ruin the story (the incredible stupid cop-out at the ending). Add the not very interesting characters (blank slate lead, cartoonishly evil bad guy) and you have an good idea with meh execution.

So then I predicted that for the next book there would be a second round and at some point a rebellion (becuse that is how these stories go), googled it and turns out I was right. So I decided not to continue.

 

So no, in my opinion Hunger Games comes nowhere close to Harry Potter (Feel free to debate me on this though, I'm always willing to listen to resonable arguments).

[Fluttermoon 192]

I haven't read the Hunger Games, the idea of it is a little off-putting to me no matter how good people say the book/movie is. I'm a big Harry Potter fan though. I loved both the movies and books.

[duidamasterXD 9,626]

If you have to put "hot guys/girls" into why something is good, its generally not a good sign....

Anyway, when word got out about the series getting movies, I sat down and read the first book.

It is okay but nothing great:

The premise has been done a hundred times before (Lord of the Flies, Battle Royal), there are some stupid aspects of the setting (Names changed but other words stayed the same, the government has no real reason to hold the games and thus encourage martial upbringing in the people they suppress) and there are plotholes that just ruin the story (the incredible stupid cop-out at the ending). Add the not very interesting characters (blank slate lead, cartoonishly evil bad guy) and you have an good idea with meh execution.

So then I predicted that for the next book there would be a second round and at some point a rebellion (becuse that is how these stories go), googled it and turns out I was right. So I decided not to continue.

 

So no, in my opinion Hunger Games comes nowhere close to Harry Potter (Feel free to debate me on this though, I'm always willing to listen to resonable arguments).

In my opinion the second book of the Hunger Games was much better than the first, introducing some more interesting characters and being a bit more suspenseful, but yeah, Harry Potter still dwarfs it in most every aspect.

Edited December 31, 2012 by DashForever

[Dusty Soul 2,611]

Meh, I don't really like both.  I haven't seen all the Harry Potter movies, but I seem to like those  a little more then the one Hunger games one.  The books, I liked Hunger games more.  Though these are facts, I really didn't like either.

[Radiance64 7,052]

Harry Potter easily, awesomely epic and long storyline with very memorable, iconic characters. I have not read or seen The Hunger Games, I don't really like the premise(that Jennifer Lawrence chick is pretty hot though).

[Cowl 128]

I will give my opinions of both book series, since that is my favorite media.

 

The Harry Potter series initially has weaker writing than the hunger games. However the plot of Harry Potter is more carefully thought out. As both series progress the writing in harry potter improves until book 5 where the author’s improvement stagnates. The author of hunger games doesn't improve their writing abilities by any significant margin. Additionally the Hunger games plot starts recycling and pulling heavily on tropes as the author has to fish for more ideas.

 

Both are fairly good, but Harry Potter is better in my opinion and the universe is well defined enough that other stories could be told within it, whereas Hunger Games universe was not sufficiently planned out before the first book was published.

[Otter 1,942]

The Hunger Games can't hold a candle to the Harry Potter series. Harry Potter is infinitely more complex, deeper, and more interesting overall. The whole thing with Sirius Black was kind of annoying (books 3-5 micro-summary: OOO! I got's a godfather! Aw crud, he died. Moving on...), but not as annoying as the stupid love triangle thing in The Hunger Games. It was just kind of... boring, really. Sure, there's a sort of love triangle in Harry Potter, but in that series, it was done right. J.K. Rowling is a much better writer than Suzanne Collins. Which is not to say Suzanne Collins is a bad writer, she's just not as good as Rowling.

[MagicalStarRain 599]

I love both of them, but I personally wish the Hunger Games author went into more detail about what life was like before the Dark Days and the customs of the other districts. I would've also liked to have known if the citizens of the Capitol did anything but Hunger Games, fashion, and food. Otherwise, I absolutely love the series and I cried when two certain characters died. I enjoyed the love story mainly because of drive. It also inspired me to take up archery. I practice pretty much everyday with my green bow, shooting at a target in my backyard!

 

As for Harry Potter, I love all of the extra legends and the wide array of magical items, from wands to potions to books to stones! I also love how there are so many spells and stuff! I was a little disappointed at the lack of romance in the series though. For me, it made stories more enjoyable and gives the characters a drive. What I also didn't like was how there wasn't a lot of apparent character development for Harry.

 

What I love about both of them is their great plots that makes me eager to read the next page. Not only that, they're both emotional and they get me crying everytime a favorite character of mine dies. They both have so much detail story-wise that I can picture every scene! Magic and arrows are my weapons.

[Nah 3,181]

I read the Harry Potter series and loved it, The Hunger Games never interested me, long before it got popular it didn't sound good. I did try reading it but it wasn't my thing, I saw the movie and could care less about it.

 

Harry Potter > Hunger Games 

Edited December 31, 2012 by SamtheLegoman

[Clarity 3,094]

Harry Potter by far. The way Rowling writes those books makes me want to live in the magical world myself. It's just...deeper. She emphasizes the relationships between the characters so much better than Suzanne Collins, making you actually FEEL when someone dies. 

 

The Hunger Games series are hugely overrated. So many plotholes, generic one-way romance, et cetera. Mockingjay basically ruined it for me. Hurr durr, gun shot, BOOM you're dead. Boring. 

[Scootalove 10,685]

I really like both the Hunger Games and Harry Potter. The movies from Harry Potter really define something, but I don't know what it is. The Hunger Games shows the way of survival in a competition of wits,stealth, and cunning to win against other competitors. It's really hard to decide on which one is better. Both of their movies & books are good.

[Betez 1,734]

Man this is a tough one. I like them both a lot. I like how Hunger Games are written in the first person, but Harry Potter is such a unique and amazing story. However, I'd have to go with Hunger Games, because they're not 800 pages.

[Candy Apples 18]

Going on books or movies? 'Cause I don't feel right judging on movies since only the first one is out for The Hunger Games. 

 

But, I say Harry Potter on the books. I could read them over and over and never get tired of it. 

[Blinding Light 81]

You serious? Harry Potter beats HB by a landslide. Better plot, Better characters, And a better setting. HG is good and all but I prefer HP to it.

[BeatrixBow 119]

I have read all the Harry Potter books and the hunger games series as well. I've watched all HP movies but not the HG movie.I have to say that even though I love them both, I have to say that my s is and I are diehard HP fans though. And the movies for HP were awesome!!

[Champion RD92 8,655]

The Harry Potter series is my absolute favorite book series (although I hardly ever read)

 

I'm a huge fan of Harry Potter, I've read every book and seen every movie. I'm assuming we are comparing the books not the movies. I would say Harry Potter is better than the Hunger Games by far. I didn't quite finish the 3rd book of the Hunger Games series because I got kind of bored of it. I think the Hunger Games is a good series but it just doesn't even come close to Harry Potter. Um...I kind of feel like I'm just rambling, so I'll just conclude with this:

 

Harry Potter > Hunger Games

[TheSupremeLeaderOfChaos 1,190]

Definitely Harry Potter. However much I love the Hunger Games (except Mockingjay. Bleh. ), Harry Potter had a much better plot build up, more down-to-earth characters and interesting plot twists, such as (spoiler) Snape being good. Over all, Harry Potter was better, and had more in it than the Hunger Games. After all, wasn't the Hunger Games's main plot about a bunch of kids murdering each other?