Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

What is the better Trilogy, The "Original Star Wars" or the "Lord of the Rings?"

Commander PK

By Commander PK
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Commander PK

Commander PK

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I pick "Rings." Up until the Lord of the Rings nothing was better than the original Star Wars. I honestly never thought Lucas "space opera" would be undone, but Peter Jackson pulled it off. His treatment of Lord of the Rings is fantastic. "Return of the King" is the Best Picture winner, no doubt. Footnote: (Another movie in the "Best Picture" category is "Mystic River." If you haven't seen this yet, check it out. It's still playing in some theatres. It's a totally different film from Return of the King, but it's really good, will be the runner up)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of

Ghost of

Posted
Posted

LotR

Tolkien was an influence on Lucas, and the film version showed that you can use elevated, even archaic language at times, and yet still convey emotion and subtelty necessary for a work of epic art.

I think Jackson could have done an even better job than he did at points, but I'd likely have said that about anyone's work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Muskrat

Muskrat

Posted
Posted

I grew up on Star Wars, saw all of them in their initial release in theaters and Star Wars defined my childhood....and much of my adulthood as well. That being said, The Lord of the Rings trilogy bests it on all accounts.

As much as Star Wars defined my childhood, fantasy defined my teen years..including my first time reading Tolkiens' classic...I loved the Rankin/Bass version of "The Hobbit" and "Return of the King".

...all that being said, Lord of the Rings is just a better story, and a better cinematic achievement.

It must be said, however, that of the two trilogies, the Vader revelation that he is Lukes father is possibly the greatest moment in BOTH trilogies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest 979guy

Guest 979guy

Posted
Posted

A) Stars Wars had no endless, boring, stretching-for-hours, sticky, one-more-before-the-end scenes.

B) Come on, walking-talking trees are much worse than Ewoks!

C) You cannot simply burn the Force in some hot lava. My point is - action, adventure and imagination aside - Star Wars has philosophy behind it (while LOTR is kind of about jewelry if you will...).

D) No X-wing fighters? ha!

E) No really terrifying, while awe-inspiring, character such as Lord Vader?

I can go on until Z quite easily.

and Star Wars, as a movie, was here first. Way first.

NO CONTEST!

(ps- and I object to letting members born after, say, 1978, vote on this!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
In Flames

In Flames

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by IAMBG

That's a toughie. If i was a kid growing up able to experience both trilogies at the same time, I think I'd go Star Wars.

But honestly, both suck compared to the Matrix :Doh man, the matrix was horrible.....absolutely horrible, the first one was ok, the second was bad, and i didnt even bother watching the third one, what a horrible trilogy.

OK AND GOODBYE!!!!!!!!

::2cents:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of

Ghost of

Posted
Posted

Uh 979

Tolkien's story far predates(and prefigures---Vader is the SW trilogy's Gollum, but with a deliberate redemption---think about it) so how the hell would our age influence it?

I was born in 1977 and was all hopped up ready for Episode I. Until this past year, I had a Jedi vs. Sith poster on my wall, I collected the SW figures(old and new) and played all the video games.

LotR is still better---and they're not trees, they're tree shepherds and please tell me you don't think one of the deepest and most rich stories of all time is about jewelry? LotR's theological themes, symbolism and parallels make SW look like a nursery rhyme.

And that's coming from someone who thinks the originals were NOT just some kids B-movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest 979guy

Guest 979guy

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Tolkien's story far predates(and prefigures---Vader is the SW trilogy's Gollum...

Ah, but we are talking about the movie trilogy, not the book.

I know I'm probably quite a tiny minority in my conviction, but I believe LOTR was just a very long (visually pretty) yawn. If It weren't for Gollum most of you, as well, would probably have fallen asleep during II and many parts of III. Each of the films could have been easily fitted into 120 mins. yet we had to go through soap-opera-like editing of 30 minute goodbyes and 40 minute-long while 3-yard-long hobbit treks up a stupid mountain.

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

...and please tell me you don't think one of the deepest and most rich stories of all time is about jewelry?

I thought it wasn't deep at all - again, I'm refereing to the movie trilogy. It was for the most part childish, which would have been ok had it not been so pretentious. My :2cents: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Glenn X

Glenn X

Posted
Posted

Since we're talking movies here and not books (BTW, I've never read Tolkien's LOTR novels and really have no burning desire to do so, as I see little point in reading something that long if it can't, say, help me out in the afterlife; and I'm an agnostic, for goodness sake ;) ), I'd have to say the original Star Wars trilogy makes for a better movie-watching experience.

A friend of mine who loves LOTR got all bent of shape when I told him that Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (I'm surprised more movie theater marquees didn't simply collapse under the weight of all those letters when this film was released :laugh: ) was the "cinematic equivalent of Unisom." I'm sorry, folks. I tried. I really tried. I remember looking down at my watch at what felt like about the 2.5 hour mark while watching LOTR: TFOTR, realizing that I was only 90 minutes through and dejectedly slumping down in my chair and sighing in disbelief.

Later on, I figured: "Hey, maybe I was just tired that night. Maybe I should watch it again, just to see." So I did. And I was just as underwhelmed the second time around.

And that ending? Ugh. We're walking... and we're walking... and we're walking some more. And the movie ends, and... we're still f*cking walking! With no resolution in sight! Sorry, Mr. Jackson, but that's no way to end a movie, especially a 3-hour-long movie.

Even a buddy of mine who's really into Dungeons & Dragons and the whole Tolkien scene conceded that you can't end a movie that way, that major motion pictures are different from books, that some kind of resolution must be offered at the end of a film, that you can't string an audience along for 3 hours and then basically say, "To be continued, folks!"

In fact, I disliked LOTR so much that I planned on completely avoiding the remaining 6 hours -- SIX HOURS! -- of the trilogy. "Let the rest of the world see it," I decided. "That just ain't my cup o' tea."

Then I went over to my sister's house last Thanksgiving and she'd just purchased Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers on DVD and was hell bent on watching it, whether I liked it or not. And since she's only got one TV at her place (how quaint! :rolleyes: ), I was essentially forced to watch the damn thing.

And you know what? I actually quite liked it. I didn't love it, nor did I feel compelled to run out and buy it on DVD, but I wasn't bored to death by it. It was still 3 hours in length (big minus), but it was also relatively leaner and more linear, with more of an emphasis on its characters of action, Aragorn, Legolas & Gimli, and their rousing deeds (big plus), and less of an emphasis on Frodo and his tedious burden of trying to carry... and carry... and carry the ring to its final destruction (big plus).

(I know that most people really love Frodo and his story, which is the linchpin of the whole narrative, but it just never did much for me. I guess that's because, unlike, say, Aragorn or Legolas, Frodo is not really in control of his destiny, not an active agent in his fate; he's really more a victim of circumstance and, as such, he's constantly besieged and put upon during his journey. I guess I could only take so much of Elijah Wood writhing around on the ground, trying to stave off the evil influence of the ring... or Elijah Wood cowering in the darkness, trying to evade being detected by evil minions... or Elijah Wood being captured and mistreated by his captors. Ugh. Enough already. It was like watching The Terminal Loop of Victimhood.)

I also liked the whole love-triangle thing between Aragorn, Eowyn, and Arwen in LOTR: TTT. Cannily, Arwen was hardly even seen in LOTR: TTT; her presence was largely implied, making it that much more effective vis-à-vis the dynamic developing between Aragorn and Eowyn. And I could see Aragorn going for Eowyn. She was attractive and fiery and interested in him. But, most important of all, she was actually there. Arwen was on her way to Faeryland and might never see him again. Of course, Aragorn still loved Arwen. But things were complicated with her. But with Eowyn? It seemed eminently easier for that to potentially work. What was going to happen? That question kept me hooked, kept my watching, waiting for an answer.

In addition, while there were multiple action sequences in LOTR: TTT, I don't remember there being an overabundance of them. On the other hand, the sheer amount of action in Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King became utterly numbing to me. If the first movie was largely walk, walk, walk, walk, walk, then the last one was mostly fight, fight, fight, fight, fight. You can only have so many BIG action sequences in one movie and still have them be meaningful, and I felt like Jackson tried to cram too many action set-pieces into one flick. (Although that sequence in LOTR: TROTK with the giant spider was scary as sh*t! G*ddamn, I hate spiders! :twitch: )

The chief parallel between the original SW trilogy and the LOTR trilogy, that the second installment in each series stands out as the best (at least to me), is interesting. But the parallels end there in my opinion. While the SW trilogy has its share of creaky or even cringe-inducing moments, it's also brisk (approximately 2 hours per movie, not 3 hours), sharp, poignant, funny (and don't even try to tell me how "funny" Merry & Pippin were; those two were so f*cking irritating to me that I kept hoping some Orc would devour them), and fun. It didn't take itself too seriously. It didn't try to hold up the pretense of the literary. It didn't have a pompous blowhard like the L.A. Times' Kenneth Turan calling it the "greatest cinematic achievement of our time." It was just fun. And that was all it had to be, at least for me.

At the end of the day, my definition of a great movie is one that I want to watch again and again. I still want to watch Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi again and again. But if I never see The Fellowship of the Ring or The Two Towers or The Return of the King again, it won't bother me one bit. And, simply put, that's why I prefer SW to LOTR.

P.S.

Originally posted by 979guy

Stars Wars had no endless, boring, stretching-for-hours, sticky, one-more-before-the-end scenes.

Amen!

The last LOTR movie had to be the worst in that department. As the camera moved up and away during that departing shot of newly-crowned King Aragorn and everyone else at the castle, Jackson should've faded to black and called it a day. But, no, we get Frodo and his pals returning to Hobbitsville and moving on with their lives. At this point, I wanted to be moving on with my own life, exiting the theater and going home. I want the final credits to be rolling. But, no, we get even more of Frodo and his pals. Sam gets married. Frodo starts writing a book. I'm wondering, " Where the f*ck is this going?" Frodo gives the book to Sam to finish. You see, Frodo wants to get on some boat and go to... Oh, for the love of all that is good and holy, Mr. Jackson, end this damn movie!

P.P.S. While LOTR: TROTK has been nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, the most entertaining genre movie I saw during 2003 was X-Men 2.

P.P.P.S. I've never really understood the furor among so many Star Wars fans over the Ewoks. I don't even recall them being onscreen that much in Jedi. Moreover, they've never struck me as patently irritating. Now, Jar-Jar Binks? That's an irritating motherf*cker! Meesa wish you'd get stomped to death by a platoon of Storm Troopers, Jar-Jar! Hell, at least the Ewoks kept their mouths shut. And, hey, they ran around with bows & arrows and attacked the bad guys. So what's to complain about? The fact that they looked like teddy bears? Sh*t, I'd rather have them look like that than, say, giant spiders! :twitch:

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Muskrat

Muskrat

Posted
Posted

Glenn X....one minor question, really (and I do LOVE Star Wars with all of my heart). LotR has entered that coveted area where public acceptance, acclaim, and box office dollars meet with critical praise. Now, I am not one to hold critics in high regard, but when all of those things come together, you end up with something special. As much as I love the 'Holy Trilogy', as a film, LotR is a more 'complete', tightly woven story. Did LotR have a lot of expositionary scenes? Yes. But they were a necessary part of the adaptation from the book(s).

No doubt about it, the SW-OT is my solid #2 choice, right on the heels of LotR....but when you look at all of the things that great film has: scope, acting, story....LotR has them all while Star Wars is a little lacking in..well..one area: acting. The acting in SW, while adequate (and quite good in some areas) isn't up to par with that of LotR. As a cinematic achievement, LotR pretty much 'has' to be the winner, just based on what a 'great' film is.

Now, as pure 'escapism', Star Wars wins....you can sit down, watch the movie, and simply have a good time. LotR is like a high yield investment...

BTW- X-2 was an awesome movie, one of the better sequels I've seen in a LOOONG time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...