Directors Star Wars vs Lord of the Rings. (1 Viewer)

[Haggai]

True, but my point was just that if Star Wars had flopped, the AG success might have been a life-line for him, with some studio execs saying, "OK, keep him away from all this sci-fi stuff that nobody wants to see, and maybe he'll make us some money." What did Jackson have to fall back on, Meet The Feebles?

 

[Kenneth]

Because the reputation of LotR's was so high (due to the books) the rights outside the US were sold; ie: companies paid Miramax a flat fee to assume the risk (and benefit) of the release in their market. So Miramax may not have received as much as they would have from the actual box office but they received money up-front before they had even delivered a product. That is my understanding.

Kenneth

 

[Haggai]

OK, Kenneth, thanks. I think you mean New Line, not Miramax, right?

 

[Kenneth]

Oops :b my bad. I don't even know what kind of a Freudian slip that was

Personally I think it was Dennis using his Jedi tricks on me "The Force can have a strong influence on a weak mind."

We now return you to the previous debate, already in progress

Kenneth

 

[Stephen_L]

I've been rewatching the Star Wars films on DVD, and while I enjoy them immensely, they don't hold a candle to the LOTR series. There is no argument that SW was more historically significant. For better or worse SW (with Jaws) created the summer blockbuster phenomenon that lives with us today. LOTR would not have been made without that history. SW was groundbreaking in terms of special effects; no film had looked like it before. However none of these historic facts speaks to which films are a better entertainment experience. Star Wars was a series of my youth and has not aged very well for me. Many of the lead performances are weak, and I cringe at some of the dialogue.
LOTR is faithfully adapted from a superior, darker, more complex story. In the LOTR films the characters are richer, and the performances terrific (even in the smaller parts) What's more I had more genuine emotional responses to moments in LOTR than the SW series. Finally, on the just plain thrills-a-minute scale, LOTR gave me more goose-bumps moments than the SW trilogy (which had many as well) I won't trash SW, it was a wonderful series full of wonderful times at the movies. But now as an older person, I find LOTR the better entertainment.

Finally on the risk scale, LOTR trumps Star Wars easily. Fox took only a small gamble on Lucas; he had a hit film under his belt, a small budget and no expectations. There was no commitment on sequels. LOTR had monstrous expectations from some of the most obsessed and demanding fans in the world. New Line bet its entire corporate future on three expensive films, when the first might tank and sink the sequels. Peter Jackson (despite the excellent "Heavenly Creatures") was not a commercially proven director at the helm of three films simultaneously. I'm still in awe that New Line took such a gamble, and eternally grateful.

 

[Andy Sheets]

One thing I think LOTR could have used that's in Star Wars is Lucas's enthusiasm for editing transitions. I love that even in the prequels he still uses tons of different wipes and irises. In LOTR it's just cut, cut, cut

 

[ChuckSolo]

Having seen "Star Wars" when it first came out (I'm 49)at the theater and watching it just recently, I can honestly tell you that "Star Wars" effects are only marginally better than those of the old original Star Trek show. Actually it really did nothing for me back then!! Give me the LOTR Trilogy any day. The rubber, papier-mache looking costumes in the original "Star Wars" is laughable today.

 

[Quentin]

Oooooh...I'd disagree.

The budget on SW was not small. It was relatively big at the time, and no movie like it with any level of success. Then, Lucas went over-schedule and over-budget. They were definitely taking a huge risk and Lucas felt the pressure (hyper-tension, etc.). THEN, Lucas spent his OWN personal money to make the sequels. That's balls.

New Line committed less than $100 mil to make 3 movies. That's cheap. Sure, the fan expectations were huge, and if the first movie tanked, the other two were in trouble. But, they were guaranteed to break even because they sold the world-wide rights for all three movies at once. They were never in any corporate danger whatsoever.

 

[Haggai]

I thought the total budget for all three LOTR films was around $300 million--did New Line only put up $100 mil of that?

 

[Kenneth]

The budget for LotR's was 300 million NEW ZEALAND DOLLARS. The equivalent for US dollars would have been close to 100 million.

Kenneth

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I made no comment on him as a director. No director could compensate for the lesser (not bad, but not Tolkien) writing of Star Wars.

Star Wars loses before the horses leave the gate. The movies are inferior because the writing is inferior, and nothing on the handicapped side can compensate for it. The race was Jackson's to lose, and he didn't.

 

[Haggai]

Huh? Every source I've seen had the budget for each individual LOTR movie at about $90-100 million US dollars. How could they have each cost less than $35 million? That doesn't sound right to me at all. I know the film-three-at-once schedule made it less expensive than filming three separate movies, but $100 million total?

 

[Kenneth]

I did more research on the web and looks like it was around $270 million US up front (which they later increased for the 2nd,3rd movies). However, since all the work was done in New Zealand it would have a greater return on the amount of money spent (stuff would have cheaper in New Zealand than in the US).

I better stop posting until I can get Dennis to stop using those Jedi skills on me

Incidentally, at least I found where my weak willed mind remembered the 100 million number from:


That was from the original press release for LotR's. In New Zealand $ that would have been around 300 million and New Zealand articles at the time talk about the project being planned to pump 200 million into their economy.

Kenneth

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Who wants to lay odds on the following match-ups:

• Rancor vs. Treebeard
• Dooku vs. Saruman
• Gollum vs. Jar Jar
• Who would win in a catfight, Galadriel or Mon Mothma?

 

[Lew Crippen]

Not by my reckoning. In the beginning of 2000, a New Zealand dollar was worth about 52 US cents.

Besides most figures put the LOTR budget at a bit over $270M US.

EDIT--sorry--I see that you had another post while I was writing and came up with better budget numbers.

 

[Matt Stone]

That sums up my feelings. I think anyone who's read a good deal of my posts can see that I'm an equal opportunity fanboy (The Matrix films included)

LOTR definitely has a more "professional" touch to it, but I agree with the poster that brought up intangibles. Star Wars has it, where LOTR doesn't. It may be nostalgia, but many moments in Star Wars just give me goosebumps. So, comparing the technical aspects of film-making, LOTR has the edge. Comparing how I feel about the films, they're dead even.

...though I do think Empire is the best movie of all 6.

 

[Pete-D]

Star Wars if you mean the OT vs. LOTR.

If you include the prequels, then LOTR.

I think at its heart LOTR is more suited towards the book format (albiet one with some spectacular set pieces), and Jackson did a fantastic job of bringing that vision to the big screen.

However, I think Star Wars is simply more accessible. I know plenty of people who love LOTR, but a lot of average schmoes that (especailly younger women) just can't get into it or have problems sitting through the entire movie without starting to doze off.

Han Solo-Princess Leia is a more natural and accessible love story, the Arwen-Aragorn one is a bit more formal, I guess.

The long running time, the multitude of characters, the richness of the mythology, the somewhat mideval language, etc. I think can be daunting for some average film goers.

Star Wars, specifically the OT, is more laid back and at 2 hours per film, I think a bit more palatable for some.

In terms of impact on pop culture, definitely Star Wars again.

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

You are in command now ADMIRAL Kenneth.

-Dennis

 

[Quentin]

But, that was not (as stated earlier) put out up front. That is the final budget, and it was approved (mostly for post work) AFTER the success of the first film.

The original amount put out UP FRONT for all 3 films was around $130 million. And, sales of foreign rights for the films covered that expenditure - so, the movies broke even before we ever saw them in a theater.

 

[Tom Martin]

ChuckSolo, i actually find the rubbery outfits in SW to be rather endearing. the fact that Lucas changed a lot of that stuff to cgi kinda spoils a lot of it for me.