jawab pertanyaan ini

harry potter vs twilight Pertanyaan

On all fiction saga fanbases, Lord of the Rings came first. It's successor is the Harry Potter series. Many claim Twilight is Harry Potter's. What do anda think? Is Twilight the successor of Harry Potter?

For me, I do not think so, especially that vampire DO NOT sparkle :P
*
I'll add a subquestion: Why?
ryomaidol posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu
*
well many people like Twihards and the MEDIA do deny that HP will be TW's predecessor.
ryomaidol posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu
*
^ sorry I mean, [i] do emphasize that HP will be TW's predecessor. [/i]
ryomaidol posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu
 ryomaidol posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu
next question »

harry potter vs twilight  jawaban terbaik

ilovereading said:
The term fantasi means a genre of literature that origins from fairytales, legends and myths and for its setting, plot atau theme uses supernatural elements like magic.
J. R. R. Tolkien is, with his The Lord of the Rings (and other buku like Hobbit, Silmallirion...) know as the father of modern fantasy.

Now, Harry Potter series and Lord of the Rings have much in common. They are both epic atau high fantasi in which main theme is conflict between good and evil, hero`s struggle for victory etc.
I would never dare to say that Harry Potter is better than Lord of the Rings, although I like it lebih (simply because it is closer to my time and way of thinking).

Twilight and great works of epic fantasi have almost nothing in common, except maybe for large fanbase and a couple of mythical creatures.
Yes, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings have cinta to, but it`s not used as main plot issue. And no, chit chat between the Volturi and Cullens is not exactly good vs evil.

Twilight is not successor of Harry Potter because a romance "fantasy" story does not have what it takes to set foundations for selanjutnya generation of (good) fantasi writers.
select as best answer
posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu 
*
Best answer, dear friend.
Queenoftard posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu
next question »

Jawaban

ToyletGnome said:
I don't think Harry Potter is necessarily the successor of Lord of the Rings because that would imply that it has replaced it, which it hasn't. I think that, lebih accurately, Harry Potter is the selanjutnya fantasi series to gabung the ranks of Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia as a timeless fantasi classic which will be remembered for generations to come. Twilight will never be part of this group.

Twilight is not an epic fantasy, a timeless classic, well written, atau anything lebih than a fad. It's a cheesy romance novel, so for it to be "the selanjutnya Harry Potter," literature must surely die first.
select as best answer
posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu 
*
I was going to post an answer to this question, but you've berkata everything for me. *hugs*
ChocAttack266 posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu
*
^ *double hugs with extra glompage*
ToyletGnome posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu
*
*huggles back* Yupyupyup. :)
sleazy_weasley posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu
Persephone713 said:
That was something the Press came up with to hype the series even more. LOTR, Harry Potter, and bintang Wars are in the Same league. But Twilight will never live on as long as those three fanbases. Twilight is a fad. That is why they are coming out so fast in theatres. For fear of lack of interest. But that really erked me when they berkata " Twilight is the selanjutnya Harry Potter" atau " Stephanie Meyer is the selanjutnya Jo Rowling" Really? Give me break. atau I'll have the Death Eaters Give anda a visit. Everything the press is fabricated and untrue.
select as best answer
 That was something the Press came up with to hype the series even more. LOTR, Harry Potter, and bintang Wars are in the Same league. But Twilight will never live on as long as those three fanbases. Twilight is a fad. That is why they are coming out so fast in theatres. For fear of lack of interest. But that really erked me when they berkata " Twilight is the selanjutnya Harry Potter" atau " Stephanie Meyer is the selanjutnya Jo Rowling" Really? Give me break. atau I'll have the Death Eaters Give anda a visit. Everything the press is fabricated and untrue.
posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu 
*
Awesome.
kwlski4ever posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu
*
Mmmm... Staaaaar Waaaaars. Yum.
ToyletGnome posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu
kwlski4ever said:
No way.
select as best answer
posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu 
HaleyDewit said:
Are anda kidding me?Totally not!Not even close!
select as best answer
posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu 
abitofaLunaTic said:
No, I don't think so
select as best answer
posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu 
electricelle said:
twilight is like one bintang (albeit an overly glittery, sparkles covered one) in a galaxy compared to lord of the rings atau harry potter :D.
It only scratches at the surface in comparison to their originality creativity and depth :P
select as best answer
posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu 
Aquamarina said:
No, I don´t think Harry Potter is the successor of Lord of the Rings and I don´t think Twilight is the successor of Harry Potter either.
They do not base on each other, but on some elements out of old legends (like dragons, wizards, vampires,...) and on the creativity of their author.
In my opinion, it just happened oleh accident that LotR was the first great fantasi saga.
If Twilight atau HP were the first ones, we would say that the others base on them.
But the only thing these three series have in common is the existing of magic/magical elements. Apart from that, they are completely different.
select as best answer
posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu 
MadamOcta13 said:
No, because in 200 hundred years, people will still be membaca HP. People will also be saying "Stephenie who?"
select as best answer
posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu 
*
How do anda want to know that?
Aquamarina posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu
*
You're kidding right?
MadamOcta13 posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu
*
future*
venvargie posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu
sleazy_weasley said:
No, because Harry Potter is actually GOOD, as opposed to Twilight. -_-

Too tired to give real reasons, sorry. I might come back later and ubah my answer. :)
select as best answer
posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu 
apukarajagi said:
LOTR and harry potter are just great buku that took the authors soo much time to put together. if anything narnia should gabung the leaque of harry and frodo.
twilight has no place on its shelf.
twilight can sit in the bin where it belongs
select as best answer
posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu 
*
Ikr
sami99 posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu
*
I think it's kind of funny how childrens' buku are held as highly as LOTR, not that I'm a fan of any of them.
cassie-1-2-3 posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu
sami99 said:
If I had to ordered them it would go like this 1lord of the rings 2harry potter 3twilight
select as best answer
posted lebih dari setahun yang lalu 
next question »