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

[Ghost of]

code

as a Star Wars fan you should be well aware that Star Wars is sci-fantasy, not true science fiction

It follows fantasy conventions far more than science fiction. Counsel from an old hermit "wizard," inherited swords, magical abilities, great beasts(Krayt Dragon only mentioned and the Rancor and a few others) swordfights and coincidental familial relationships between key characters.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by codeorama

There are tons of movies that win awards that people don't go and see.

I agree with you there but to be nominated for Best Picture and Best Director for each one, and should have won all three but I know it didn't means something.

[Ghost of]

I can finally get the bad taste of 11 Titanic Oscars out of my mouth. That flick is going to make everyone look back and say "what the F where they on?!" That movie should have got maybe 2-3 for art design or some crap.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

code

as a Star Wars fan you should be well aware that Star Wars is sci-fantasy, not true science fiction

It follows fantasy conventions far more than science fiction. Counsel from an old hermit "wizard," inherited swords, magical abilities, great beasts(Krayt Dragon only mentioned and the Rancor and a few others) swordfights and coincidental familial relationships between key characters.

Good points, but IMO, the "technology" is the key. SW is a space movie, LOTR is a D&D style movie.

But again, there is no need to argue over which is better because it's all opinon.

Will the LOTR movies be as big in 20 years, that's the question.

[gridironmike]

I haven't read all of the posts, but it would've been neat to see what Lucas could've done with the story if he could've started with Episode I right now and developed the story along with the effects technology. The original is the best.

[NavyDave]

LOTR

I am salivating for the Empire Strikes Back and I am hoping this year on HBO ShowTime that there will be a HDTV version

[Henry]

Technically, SW is a fantasy movie. By definition, Sci Fi involves the planet Earth and the future in some way. Still, that's really splitting hairs if you ask me.

LOTR deserved every single Oscar it won last night. No question. However, without SW to pave the way there is no WAY the Academy would even consider handing a Best Picture to an effects-driven Fantasy movie. Back in 77 they didn't have half the awards for technical merit that they do today. The reason they do now is the SW Trilogy.

[Burgold]

Actually, I think it's the overreliance on technology that made the recent sw movies so much weaker. Because they are worrying wo much about bigger faster more exciting. They've done away with things like character, plotting, and story. Star Wars was as good as it was because it built on the archetypes, myths, serials and was an innovator of special effects, but primarily because it was a darn good story with strong characters. You could actually take the story and characters of SW and place them in a spaghetti western or feudal Japan and they would work very well. It's Han and Chewie... It's Legolas and Gimli... It's Sam and Frodo... it's R2D2 and C3PO. If we don't care about them, we don't care what they have to go through. There have been amazing special effects movies that have been all but forgotten, because while they're cool there's only so much you can get excited by stuff constantly blowing up.

[Mr. S]

the star wars movies still seem childish geared in a sense, like ewoks, wookies, and all the other fuzzy creatures. Lord of the Rings are definitely something done much better i feel.

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Yeah Glenn, that sequence on Tatooine in A New Hope isn't slow at all! LOL

Even if you found that to be plodding, that's one sequence in a film that's approximately two hours long vs. the LOTR films that each clock in at over three hours. Simply put, there are far more opportunities for the LOTR films to drag, and, boy, do they ever take advantage of those opportunities. We're walking and we're walking and we're walking... Hell, even when they're fighting, as they're mostly doing in LOTR: TROTK, the fighting becomes so redundant. I mean, c'mon, how many times must we see vast armies of men square off against even vaster armies of mutant thugs, how many times must we see said mutant thugs attack human strongholds with huge catapults, swinging massive boulders high through the sky, sharing airtime with various winged creatures?

After a while I felt like I was watching, say, an old Voltron cartoon, with the same battle scene progressions over and over again.

Just because something is bigger and louder, doesn't make it automatically exciting or entertaining. There needs to be a dynamic range to the fighting. When everything is loud, then eventually nothing is loud because you begin to tune it out. At least I did.

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

I can finally get the bad taste of 11 Titanic Oscars out of my mouth. That flick is going to make everyone look back and say "what the F where they on?!" That movie should have got maybe 2-3 for art design or some crap.

Well, lemme say this, Ghost. At least during Titanic I never asked, "Now why did they even build this ship? What point does it serve? I mean, c'mon, transatlantic travel? Who could ever be interested in that?"

However, the first time I saw LOTR: TFOTR, I remember thinking:

Why a ring? I understand that it's an eeeeeeeeeevil ring and its eeeeeeeeeevil powers obviously buck up Sauron, making him even more eeeeeeeeeevil than he ordinarily is. But why not, say, a sword? That would seem to make more sense than something purely decorative like a ring, especially considering that Sauron is fighting this massive war, trying to take over the whole world and all. He could use a big, badass eeeeeeeeeevil sword to cut a wide swath through his enemies, on his way to victory. Perhaps Tolkien didn't want to tread to close to the legend of Excalibur or something and that's why there was no eeeeeeeeeevil sword. But, still, a ring?

Moreover, why would Sauron make this eeeeeeeeeevil ring so powerful that if, say, some lowly human were to wrest it from his eeeeeeeeeevil fingers, he'd instantly be turned into a big pile of dust to be blown away by the cold, unforgiving winds of war? Why wouldn't Sauron be sharp enough to incorporate some sort of failsafe into the ring, one that, say, would make it unusable to anyone but him?

Hmmm, maybe such questions shouldn't even be asked? Maybe it's a bit like trying to decipher why it was that whenever The Superfriends' Wonder Twins, Zan and Jayna, would use their shape-shifting powers Jayna would always become something cool like a polar bear and Zan would always become something dumb like an "ice shovel" (meaning: a shovel made of ice :laugh: ).

"Wonder Twin Powers, activate!"

I guess some things simply aren't meant to be understood, aren't meant to have the harsh light of logic shined upon them.

But it wasn't even this that really stuck in my craw about the LOTR films. No, it was the fact that so many of the characters seemed so nondescript. Every so often they might lose their cool and scream out in anger or break down in tears, but most of the time they pretty much kept a stiff upper lip. What's more, many of the characters essentially came across as walking mannequins for their exquisitely designed costumes and hairstyles.

For example, who exactly is this Legolas guy? I mean, I know he's a real Dead-eye Dan when he's winging those arrows around, but what makes him tick, what drives him (other than his desire to shoot more bad guys than anyone else), what scares him, etc.? I never got a real sense of this cat, outside of his purdy hairdo, Clorox-white duds, and deadly bow & arrows. He was the perfect walking, talking action figure: no character development needed.

Similarly, who was this Gimli dude? Outside of being very short, grunting a lot, maintaining a spectacularly unkempt beard, and (like Legolas) wanting to slay as many baddies as possible, the films never provided much fleshing out for his character.

And Liv Tyler! Oh, my goodness, poor Liv! I think I read somewhere that they'd have her in makeup for approximately four hours before they'd shoot any of her scenes. (Four hours for elf ears?) All that work... and for what? She was basically asked to step in front of the camera, look glum most of the time, and speak barely above a whisper. And that, of course, was when she actually made it onscreen, which really wasn't that often.

I also thought the dismissal of Saruman from the narrative at the beginning of the third installment, effectively putting him in time-out for the rest of the trilogy, was a major mistake. Now, for all I know, it probably happened that way in the book too, but I don't care. For purposes of the movie, I thought it sucked. Why? Because the man who'd been the face of the villains was suddenly gone, and I don't think the filmmakers ever adequately replaced him. It'd almost be as if George Lucas, at the beginning of Return of the Jedi, had decided to send Darth Vader up to his room without any supper and never allowed him to come downstairs again for the rest of the movie.

Couple this with Frodo being reduced to essentially the role of eeeeeeeeeevil ring junkie for the vast majority of the trilogy, and I don't see a whole lot of compelling characterization happening from start to finish in LOTR.

It was almost as if Peter Jackson sat down, looked at the vast outline of the LOTR story en masse, and chose to break things down by imagining the story's progression as a series of temporal pylons, each one representing some important event in the narrative. Which is not a necessarily bad way of trying to adapt an interminably long novel into a screenplay. However, the effect of this approach seemed to be that characterization became secondary (at best) to story progression. The arc of the story itself, the getting from one battle to the next, the getting of Frodo from one mountain range to the next, the getting from point A to point B to point C to point D, took precedence over all other considerations. I guess if I'd had my druthers, I would've had a little less place-to-place and battle-to-battle, letting some of that stuff hit the cutting room floor, and a tad more character-to-character.

But, hey, that's just me. Like I said in another thread, it's obvious I'm in the minority in my opinions of LOTR, so, in the final analysis, it doesn't really matter what I would've liked to have seen. In most people's eyes, Peter Jackson & Co. did their jobs, and that is that.

[codeorama]

Glen X....

Great points, I agree totally. There's so much of LOTR that left me feeling like something was missing and you just nailed it.

[Muskrat]

Glenn, if that's how you feel...then you just don't 'get it'...that's unfortunate, really, because you missed out on one of the great cinematic achievements of our time.

As for those who question the LotR film(s) longevity....well...the books have been popular for nigh-on 50 years... I dare say that Peter Jacksons brilliance will last, at the VERY least, 20 years. I know, 'wait and see'....but does anyone HONESTLY think that this movie won't stand the test of time?

[Ancalagon the Black]

Good post, GlennX. I agree with a lot of your points, and that’s why I voted for the Star Wars trilogy, despite my love of Tolkien and everything Arda (Google my username if you have doubts). However, I think that there are specific responses to the issues you raise. I know that this a comparison between the movies, and that we don’t bring up the books for the purpose of the debate, but if you’re really interested in the answers to some of the questions you brought up, then read on.

It’s very unfair to Tolkien to accuse him of creating a story that contains things that “simply aren't meant to be understood, aren't meant to have the harsh light of logic shined upon them.” LotR stands up very well to literary and philosophical analysis.

Let’s take the example of the Ring. You intimate that a sword would have been a much better weapon for Sauron to devise. However, had Tolkien gone this route, we would have lost the incredibly rich imagery and symbolism of the Ring. A Ring signifies a bond (that’s why we exchange wedding bands when we get married), and it is a piece of jewelry. The One Ring is all about temptation, avarice, power, and glory. It immediately inflames greed in anyone who beholds it, and only those of the strongest constitutions can resist its call. Shallow people—warriors or no—will be lured by its beauty. A sword would not attract anyone; gold attracts almost everyone.

Furthermore, the One Ring is not the only ring—there are several Rings of Power. Wearing a ring has often been associated with membership in a particular group; wearing a Ring of Power (being a Ring-Bearer) is just that. A sword, on the other hand, wouldn’t really work so gracefully in this respect.

The fact that Sauron created a weapon that anyone could use is very realistic. Sauron sought power over his fellow creatures. To achieve this power, he sacrificed something of himself: he poured a lot of his being into the One Ring. This increased his sway over others, but it left him a lot more vulnerable. This mirrors how the real world operates in a couple of ways. First, there has never been a weapon devised that was not usable by anyone with the proper knowledge or tools. Second, it underscores the fact that tyranny is aided by greed and a thirst for power by others. If the Dwarves and Men hadn’t succumbed to avarice and accepted their Rings of Power, they never would have fallen to Sauron’s will.

Now, as for the characters, I agree completely that the movies didn’t really show what made them tick. Rather than finding them stiff-lipped and stoic, as you did, I found them prone to inexplicable bouts of hysteria and depression. For example, in FotR, everyone cries all the time, it seems. Arwen sobs and sobs when she thinks Frodo is dead (and earlier, she implies that she’s offering some of her immortality to him)…and she’s barely even met him! Characters develop incredibly strong bonds in very short periods of time, and their motivations are unclear. This results from the movie’s compressing the book plot to the exclusion of character development. Arwen shouldn’t really even be in there (she doesn’t have a single line until RotK, in the books), but I guess if you get a hot female lead, you need to put her in the story. Merry and Pippin (and Gimli) just become butts of jokes; their maturation is never seen (ESPECIALLY with the omission of the Scouring of the Shire, the inclusion of which would have solved your whole Saruman problem beautifully. Don’t get me started with Frodo, who basically wept or looked startled.

I’m particularly incensed with the treatment of Gandalf, who is alternately ineffectual and pompous, and never seems to offer too much real guidance. This ignores centuries of nurturing, healing, and teaching the peoples of Middle-Earth. The books’ Gandalf operates through people, which makes him infinitely more powerful than Saruman in the end.

This is just the beginning of my problems with the movies, but suffice it to say that I can relate to your issues. Nevertheless, the tale of LotR is far more compelling than that of Star Wars, and I’ll stick by that opinion.

[Commander PK]

I agree with Glenn's assessment that the LOTR's trilogy left some of the (to sum up) "who are these people, what do they stand for" characterization development to be desired. However, I think Jackson probably thought that many people had read the novel, and were already familiar with the character's. He just put a face on them. Perhaps, he thought new viewers unfamiliar with the story would just figure them out. Something in a movie this long was going to suffer. I do agree that the films were very much, Point A to Point B etc. but how else could they have been done? How could Jackson have developed the characters to the level that you asked, and not had every viewer in the theatre dead of old age by the time the movies were done? If the character development had been more involved then it was, the story itself would have suffered. Some Tolkien purists have voiced unhappiness with the fact that one part of the ROTK, the "scouring of the shire" was left out. I remember people moaning everytime another "false" ending transpired, can you imagine if he had added that as well?

[Ancalagon the Black]

Skinsfan, I think Jackson did the best job he could possibly have done. Which is delightful and sad at the same time.

I'd encourage everyone to read the books, which are far superior (obviously).

[Commander PK]

For one thing the books are not bound by any time constraints, lol

[Commander PK]

I think the movies are great, but the books are probably better (haven't read them.) It would be interesting to see, some of us will still be 50 years from now, if the films will be remembered in the same manner as say "The Wizard of Oz" is now. A yearly television ritual, that bordors on tradition.

[Muskrat]

Ancalagon....very nice post!

Yes, characterization in LotR could have been better....but that would likely have led to a drastic increase in running length...given the number of important characters that took part in the epic story.

But...is the character development in LotR worse than Star Wars? I highly doubt it (not sure if that is what you are suggesting).

There was more character development in FotR than in 'A New Hope'..

Star Wars:

.Luke: a farmboy who wants to get off his home planet..and into the rebellion...with a father who was a great warrior.

Han: A smuggler who is looking for money but finds himself drawn into the epic struggle (by the end of the film).

Leia: Princess..leader of the rebellion..not a whole lot of development with her in the first film....very strong personality though.

Vader: virtually no character development...used as sort of a henchman (a-la Jaws of 'James Bond' fame).

Fellowship to follow...

[Ghost of]

I'm not sure if there were many moments in Star Wars like Boromir's description of the White City to Aragorn.

That IS character development. Character is not just in dialogue but in action. Did no one else note the difference in Gandalf the Grey and the White? Samwise? Even Smeagol went through it but I'm sad they cut out his "near-redemption" on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol.

I'm not saying it's perfect or that all characters got equal treatment, but it wasn't BETTER in Star Wars by any stretch.

There are other moments like Billy Boyd's song for Denethor that both provide score and provide characterization(of both Faramir and Denethor.)

[Henry]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

I'm not sure if there were many moments in Star Wars like Boromir's description of the White City to Aragorn.

Oh, I don't know. Yoda's description of The Force to Luke immediately comes to mind.

That IS character development. Character is not just in dialogue but in action. Did no one else note the difference in Gandalf the Grey and the White?

Quite similar to the difference between Luke in Episode 5 and Episode 6?

We can knock this back and forth forever I guess. As I said in another thread it really just boils down to personal taste.

[Ghost of]

I said MANY moments. I also said that Star Wars wasn't BETTER in this respect, not that LotR was vastly superior.

And yes, Yoda's description of the Force and his chiding Luke for his impatience and "looking to the future" is a great moment in FILM history.

But when I said character development referring to Boromir's scene in Lothlorien, I meant more that you see what consumes Boromir, what worries him and puts him on the edge of despair--and why he sees the Ring as hope, not as something to be destroyed.

You also see him coming closer to accepting Aragorn, without being explicit, as King "LordS of Gondor have returned."

[AvesPKS]

I'd have to say, film-wise, Star Wars. You simply couldn't make a LOTR trilogy that would completely do the books justice and keep everyone in their seats. However, as far as story goes, LOTR kills Star Wars...Tolkien is the master.

[unsonny]

SatrWars

[Commander PK]

It's a shame that Boromir had to die so early in the story. Bean did an awesome job, he's a heck of an actor.

[Muskrat]

I agree, especially with the extended editions. Both FotR and TTT:EE gave Borimir more depth and character development. I really liked him..Bean DID do an awesome job.