Hunger Games vs Harry Potter
Which is better? The violent and romantic Hunger Games? Or the epic Harry Potter story?
You may either talk about the movies or the books. You can show me how you feel in any way that you believe will get your argument across.
Hunger Games
Side Score: 42
|
 |
Harry Potter
Side Score: 35
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
The Hunger Games is EPIC. Harry Potter is okay and all, but The Hunger Games is just so frickin' AMAZING. It's just great. I love it love it love it. It's just..... I can't express what I'm feeling in words. It's really good. Understatement. It's "out of this world". :D Side: Hunger Games
1
point
How could you say that? Hunger games is just a story of death and sacrifice and government take over. It's hard to feel for any character. My emotion when watching/ reading the Hunger Games: :/ On the other hand, Harry potter is know for the compelling backstory and we really can connect with most of the characters. We root for Harry all the way through and can laugh and cry along side him. Side: Harry Potter
0
points
0
points
1
point
0
points
2
points
1
point
0
points
0
points
|
I prefer magic more than violence. So I like Harry Potter.Violence is so obvious in our world nowadays. Why would I like to stuff my world with more violence when it is already abundant. On the other hand, I don't see magic that much, so I may sound like a kid, but I like it. Besides, harry potter, talks about friendship and family and love. Whereas Hunger games, when I watched it. Well, there is lying, killing and stuff. So, nah, I don't think I learned too much with it. Side: Harry Potter
Harry Potter. As my link says, The plot line is more interesting. It makes sense that the 4th book is the least favorite, because the plot line is not as interesting as all the others. And the Hunger games is a sad book. And my final argument is "Even Harry Potter's adversaries are better developed than any of the characters of the Hunger Games."
Supporting Evidence:
Reasons why Harry Potter is more compelling than Hunger Games
(carterchas.hubpages.com)
Side: Harry Potter
1
point
I've never seen or read Hunger Games, but I find it hard to believe that characters in Harry Potter are "better developed." All 7 books are a parade of single-minded, stereotypical characters. Each character in Harry Potter is a caricaturization of one emotion or personality type, and they utterly lack depth. I.e. Harry reacts to all conflict in all 7 books with testosterone-fuled impulsiveness; Hermione reacts with logic, always. Voldemort, evil, Snape, turncoat, Malfoy, coward. Every character has a specific roll to play and they don't deviate from that stereotype much at all. Even in terms of character development: Does Harry handle his confrontations in more level headed and rational manner in the 6th book than he does in the 2nd? No, he acts the exact same in all 7 books. Side: Hunger Games
1
point
No, although characters may have a tendency to lean to one side when faced with a problem, there is a lot of depth and growth of characters. For instance: Voldemort was not always evil, as we can see in his childhood. Hermione has a tendency, when she's upset, to have wrong judgement and jumps to conclusions. Malfoy is a coward, but at first he is a bully and we don't see his weakness until book 5. Snape has only jumped sides once and after never, ever betrayed Dumbledore, even at the end , as shown with the flashbacks. And with Harry himself: yes he does! Unless you haven't read carefully, would would see that his manner of bravery changes significantly. At first he tries to rescue everyone, but at the end he realized that he had to have a new type of bravery to face voldemort for the second- to- last time, and performs it successfully. And their is proof his mind doesn't work the exact same way through all of his school years. Also, we have seen: Hermione act on impulse, not logic Voldemort have some kindness (specifically, nobility and manners) Harry has used logic in situations And Snape, as we see, has really stayed on the good side the whole time. There are many other characters you may see as steriotypical, (like Neville) but reading carefully shows real development. And besides, you "Never seen or read Hunger Games". That doesn't give you a lot of credit... Side: Harry Potter
this is close but Harry Potter was amazing all the way. if we are talking about the books then i cant really say cuz i didn't read em don't judge i grew up on the movies so in 4th grade when i had the abilty to read the books i didn't want to cuz i knew what was gonna hapen...but i couldn't put the hunger games books down soo... Mockingjay's ending seemed totally rushed. It seems like it took 10 minutes to write SO IM NOT THE ONLY ONE!!! i was soooo mad about it! liiiiike ugh WTF BITCH WRITE THE FUCKIN BOOK RIGHT!! (as u can tell im still a little bitter ;)) Side: Hunger Games
1
point
1
point
"Mockingjay's ending seemed totally rushed. It seems like it took 10 minutes to write\" Mockingjay's ending isn't perfect but it is entirely believable for people who went through the horrors of the war. The HP has got this fantasy all is well ending that really doesn't make sense in the real world. Also your language and grammar as well as the swear words make the post a rather terrible argument. Side: Hunger Games
harry potter is much better than hunger games because harry potter is all about friendship ,bravery ,adventures,and magic ..... when u read harry potter u feel like going to hogwarts but that feeling does not come to u when u read hunger games , you just keep on reading it like a story , and you don't want to go and participate in the hunger games because you don't want to die during the game..... Side: Harry Potter
2
points
Harry potter has created an amazing world of magic for children and adults! It makes people feel powerful and like they can do anything! instead of encouraging killing each other. Harry Potter has so much depth and the cast really has a true bond. It has its own theme park in orlando and the studio tour in london is really breathtaking. It is hands down better, explains why it is still being created now in another form: fantastic beasts and where to find them. Side: Harry Potter
1
point
Harry Potter, no doubt. Although, it's a hotly debated topic but Hunger Games is no match for Harry Potter. The Lord Of The Rings is a much better match for harry potter, the hunger game is out of discussion. The fantasy world of Hunger games isn't that great, the first part/book is still good but the rest are not that good. If we talk about the movies, the cinematography, the script, the screenplay & casting of Harry Potter is a million times better than of the hunger games. If we talk about the book, the world, the background and every single detailing & of writing of Harry Potter is way better than of the hunger games. In the first graph below, drawn from the past twelve months of searches online, the green line is search interest in Daniel Radcliffe, star of the Harry Potter movies, of course, yellow is "Harry Potter movie", red is "Hunger Games movie" and blue is "Jennifer Lawrence". Side: Harry Potter
-1
points
1
point
Yeah because HG actually shows a realistic ending for people who went through a horrible war you know. Also it's not completely depressing given how Katniss had a family that symbolised hope for her. The HP ending in a lot of ways seem really cheesy and clumsily executed especially given that there was no page space devoted to developing some of those relationships. Side: Hunger Games
|
