system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The Lord of the Rings film series is much better than the Harry Potter film series

I was blown away by the LotR trilogy and consider them some of the best blockbusters of all time but was rather underwhelmed by the HP movies.  I don't think HP is terrible but I found them to be mediocre.  They didn't resonate with me.   Here are some of the reasons why I liked the LotR films much more than the HP films.

1.

The soundtrack.

Some of the HP music is great (Hedwig's theme, ending music of 1,2, and 8, Mischief Managed, Buckbeak's Flight, A Window to the Past) but as a whole the HP soundtrack pales in comparison to LotR.  In just the second half of The Fellowship of the Ring you have tracks such as Khazad-dûm, Parth Galen, The Departure of Boromir, and The Road Goes Ever On... , Pt. 1.  For me, LotR's soundtrack blows HP's soundtrack out of the water.

2.

The battles.


HP's action is smaller than LotR's in scale but is also smaller in entertainment value.  Wands are almost only used to block attacks, shoot quick projectiles, and send out small to medium size AOE attacks.  The action is often  people shooting offensive insta-kill spells at each other and blocking attacks with little effort.  It is difficult to figure out who is winning and exactly why the victor wins.  LotR varies the action significantly with the characters being placed in more unique situations.  The night time portion of the Battle of Helm's Deep is a great example. The action is varied and constantly keeps the viewer engaged.  The action in HP isn't awful but is nowhere near as good as the action in LotR.

3.

The world.

There are some elements in the world of LotR that I don't like but for the most part the world that the movies show seems natural and the rules are clear.  On the other hand, the world of HP doesn't make any sense.  For example, we are supposed to believe that there are thousands if not millions of wizards and people who know about wizards in a world very similar to our own yet somehow the existence of wizards does not become known to the majority of the population.   The movies have various scenes involving magic that break the audience's suspension of disbelief such as the broom ride over the river in London, the battle at the beginning of Deathly Hallows Part 1, and a dragon flying over London in Deathly Hallows Part 2.  Also, the rules of the world are very inconsistent.  In Chamber of Secrets, it is made clear that the voice of a person is not changed by the poly juice potion yet in Goblet of Fire a major plot point is that a person is able to impersonate someone else notably using their voice.  Hermione has a time turner in Prisoner of Azkaban but then doesn't use it during any of the other movies. LotR has some problems with the world (not enough explanation about Gandalf's power level, no explanation for the eagles, it isn't explained if the other rings have powers or not) but it is far better than HP in this regard.  

4.

The Bloat.

I usually am ok with a movie series taking its time to get through the story, but HP really annoyed me.  Large portions of the film could be completely removed without affecting the main plot, the development of the characters, or the state of the world in any meaningful way.  In some cases such as the parts about Gringotts in Deathly Hallows Part 2, you could remove parts of the main plot and you wouldn't lose anything of note.   The romance doesn't affect the characters in any meaningful way.  
LotR takes its time but has few unnecessary elements.  Sure, you could cut some stuff out but it doesn't suffer from bloat as much as HP.  

5

The Characters.

I really liked the members of the Fellowship since they are friends who are trying to do what they think is right.  The characters aren't perfect but seem like good people.  By comparison, the trio in Harry Potter 
is nowhere near as likable.  Ron is a flawed character but it is obvious that the audience was supposed to like him.  I hated him.  He has very few redeeming qualities, adds little to the group, and is mean and disloyal to his friends.  On the other hand, Hermione is much more likeable but suffers from lacking any real flaws.  She comes off as bland since she doesn't even seem like a real person.  These problems with characterization made it difficult to care about the trio.  

6.

The Narrative

In LotR there is alot of emotion in the story.  Frodo decides to sacrifice comfort and safety with the Fellowship for the greater good by traveling to Mordor alone.  Despite Gondor not supporting Rohan, Theoden decides to assist Gondor.  Gollum tries to become better and fight against the ring and succeeds for a time.  

In HP the main characters don't make any decisions with the same emotional impact save for Harry's choice to sacrifice himself in Deathly Hallows Part 2.  However, we know that he won't die since he gets the resurrection stone right before he goes to Voldemort so much of the emotional weight is gone.  It's difficult to be emotionally invested in the story when you are either not emotionally invested in the characters or know that their decision won't have significant consequences.  

These are some of the thoughts I have.   Change my view.

EDIT:

Changed the names of the films from acronyms to their full titles minus "The Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter and the."
gpt
I agree that the Lord of the Rings series is better than the Harry Potter series in almost all but one category: The demography of children.

The harry potter movies (especially the first ones) were made with children in mind (and teenagers). The lord of the rings movies weren't. Even the Hobbit adaptation, which in book-form was more child-friendly, became hollywoodized and more adult in tone and form.

For a child, the harry potter movies probably seem much more magical and immersive, whereas the heavier material in the lord of the rings might be more difficult to take in.