What's new

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

Kenneth

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 31, 1997
Messages
757

My impression and something we discussed in class was that Radagast also would have been a failure. Saruman failed because he spent too much time studying the enemy (kind of like Nietzsche's, "And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."). Also, Saruman was felled by one of the great mortal sins (Pride).

Radagast failed because he became focused on the animals and abandoned his mission from that standpoint. It is notable that both of the Wizards in the West who failed in their mission stayed in one location (Saruman in Isengard; Radagast near Mirkwood). Gandalf, the wizard who ultimately succeeded, was a wanderer and although he was close to many races he called no region home.

Kenneth
 

Ron-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
6,300
Real Name
Ron
In my book, the original Star Wars trilogy wins, but just by a very slim margin.
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060

When the ring was destroyed, all of what had been accomplished by the use of the other rings was lost. Middle Earth was left to the ‘common man’ (and hobbit). The ring was destroyed without the use of power and by the weakest and least powerful of the races of Middle Earth. This is very unlike the destruction of the Death Star accomplished by (as has been mentioned) a traditional hero, who draws upon the same power as the bad guys for his success.

Your points on Tolkien and C.S. Lewis are no doubt correct, but are beside the point I was trying to make. Of course if your point is that Frodo and company overcame evil because they ‘believed’ and drew upon the ultimate power of God, then there may be a point (the meek shall inherit the earth). But the meek only come into that inheritance by remaining meek—not by the means used by Luke.

This I expect is about as far as I can go without taking a position not in accordance with HTF.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,912
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW

LOL! By that definition, they *all* used power of some sort, at some level. Even Frodo needed some will power, some physical strength, etc. etc. to finally arrive at the mountain, etc. etc. That was no less than what Luke did in the 1st Star Wars movie.

What you seemed to describe originally was that Luke used power to overcome the Emperor. But that was clearly not the case unless you believe Luke used power to influence Vader rather than the other intangibles I mentioned. Using power as the real means to win is likely Anankin's downfall in Episode 3 as it was foreshadowed in Episode 2. Anankin tried to use power to overcome power, ie. the brute force method. Luke tried that to some extent in Empire Strikes Back, but clearly failed at it though not enough to fall into evil. When he succeeds in RotJ, he did not do the same thing again, but the opposite. Yes, he used the Force in the 1st movie, but that was more "luck" than him knowing what to do much like little Anankin in Episode 1.

In Star Wars, you clearly have the theme of "power corrupts" although technically one might argue that problem is in the motivation for desiring power, not power itself. Of course, we do end up getting into symmantics w/ all this.

Let's look at it another way. The Force is not necessarily power. It is only viewed like the kind of power you were talking about by the Dark side. The Good side looks at the Force more like a life force of the universe, almost a spirit thing than like power of might and such. The Jedi just has the ability to channel the Force is all. But that's really not much different than electricity or some other source of energy. But would one really say one used power and might to overcome the enemy if one merely used a little bit of energy to help overcome something mighty? It's not as though Luke destroyed the Death Star w/ nothing but the Force or perhaps slammed an entire fleet of Imperial Cruisers into the DS. That would be using power to overcome power in my book. What Luke did was use finise and by "luck" no less.

Basically, they were David and the Empire/Emperor was Goliath. Was David using power and might to overcome Goliath? Nope unless you really consider a sling to be power and might in the face of someone like Goliath.

Of course, we can debate whether David's approach or using finise in general isn't really true power, but then, we'll be here forever. :D

And tying back to some Chinese wuxia elements, :wink: the Jedi seems to prefer the equivalent of Wu-tang Tai Chi and the soft way while the Dark side obviously goes for the equivalent of brute force power to the point of losing control and becoming mad/evil. Indeed, very much like classic wuxia stories. :D In wuxia (and even in real Chinese thinking about things like Tai Chi, etc), all of those things are based on "chi", which is just like the Force down to the very core of their meanings and usages. There is nothing else in literature that I'm aware of that comes closer to the Force than the wuxia understanding of "chi". It is not merely magic or wizardry unless the magic in the particular literature resembles life force and spirit kinda like Native American believes about spirit and life force -- and there, they don't generally believe that one should harnest or control the spirit/life force, but that they are actual living entities.

BTW, anyone here seen Shaolin Soccer yet? :D

_Man_
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,912
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW

Sorry for not raising that rhetorical question more clearly. :D Yes, they are more like angels and not gods. I should've included a transition between the comment about "God's existence" in the Tolkien world and the rhetorical question so it didn't sound like I meant that they were gods. That's the trouble w/ writing these things late at night (or so very early in the AM :D).

As for Radaghast, I too had the impression that he did not really fail, but I forget the details. I don't remember that his mission was ever all so clear to the reader nor the details of what happened that one can say he failed, but again, details... However, I like the notion that he got caught up w/ nature photography. :D

_Man_
 

Tim Glover

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 12, 1999
Messages
8,220
Location
Monroe, LA
Real Name
Tim Glover
Just found this thread again. I thought it must have gotten closed or deleted. In my haste earlier today I just didn't recognize that it had moved to POLLS.

Carlo, most of your post #64 was dead on. Well articulated and alot of that I agree with.
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060

I’m not attacking Star Wars but only pointing out that I see a fundamental difference in the use of power and the need to use power in Middle Earth and Star Wars. If you think that the theme of Star Wars is ‘power corrupts’, we have seen very different movies.

There are plenty of instances of those who use power (the force) for good in Star Wars: Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi are two explicitly depicted—and all of the Jedi Knights who did not turn bad, by implication.

It is not only obvious, but expressly stated that the use of power in this universe does not necessarily corrupt. Contrast this with the use of the one ring in LOTR, where Gandalf (and others) are afraid to even touch the ring, as using the power is certain to corrupt. My view is that not only is the presence (and meaning) of power very different, so too are Frodo and Luke. True Frodo is shown using physical strength from time to time, but he is always depicted as one of the least capable of performing deeds of daring-do (and comes from the physically weakest of all the races of Middle Earth), whereas Luke physical abilities are very clear—as well as his ability to use the force (it is strong in him).

Since you think that the use of power and the necessity to use power is the same in both films and you make no distinction between the protagonists, obviously we have interrupted these films in very different ways.

Personally I don’t expect that George Lucas thought very much about the implications of any of this, as opposed to Tolkien, who very carefully considered the moral implications of what he was writing.
 

Kenneth

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 31, 1997
Messages
757
I think it is hard to make a direct comparison of the use of power in the two mythos because they come at power from totally different perspectives.

Obviously SW has corporeal power (as represented by the military of the empire and rebellion). However, it also has the incorporeal power (the force). The incorporeal power exists as both a positive and negative element of nature. The positive force appears to be more difficult to learn (Yoda talks of the Dark Side being a short cut) but it also appears to have more positives (Yoda's long life, living in harmony with the universe). The dark side is easier to learn and has powers that give the illusion of greater strength but seems to be much more consuming. It is notable in the SW mythos that they are attempting to defeat the champion of evil (the emperor/Darth Vader) and not evil itself. You get the impression that the force exists in kind of Taoist Yin/Yang relationship.

In LotR's you have the incorporeal power (Sauron) who created an instrument of his malice (The One Ring). Sauron (the incorporeal power) uses corporeal powers (Orcs, Balrogs, Shelob, etc) to further his goals. To defeat the incorporeal you have two choices you use corporeal power (which was done in the Second Age during the Last Alliance of Men and Elves) or you destroy the corporeal instrument of Sauron (The One Ring). Since the forces of "good" in Middle Earth no longer possess the corporeal power they had in the Second Age they're only corporeal option is to use The One Ring to augment their corporeal power. However, if you use the tools of evil to defeat evil you become evil yourself and thus you can't defeat evil using its own tools. This left them with the option of destroying The One Ring as their only option (if they wanted to win). It is notable that in LotR's the creatures who end up being custodians of the ring (Hobbits) are also very Taoist in nature (perhaps coincidentally).

They make reference to elements of Predestination in Bilbo's finding of the ring (in both the movies and the books). In fact it is interesting that the four people after Isuldur who possess the ring (Smeagol, Bilbo, Frodo, and Samwise) are all of a race who can't be turned by the ring except under extraordinary circumstances (in other words, the only race in Middle Earth capable of destroying The One Ring). SW has now added elements of predestination to the SW storyline with obscure references in Eps 1 and 2.

Ultimately, both stories follow epic mythos but at different levels. SW is the retelling of the classic hero quest where the hero starts from humble beginnings and through the course of physical and mental journeys comes to the end of an epic quest. LotR is the quest to defeat Evil. Although it uses protagonists (Frodo and crew) it is ultimately about finding the will to fight Evil and defeat it without becoming Evil yourself (the Fall of Saruman is an excellent example of this). Both are valid stories and you can't say one type of quest is inherently better than the other. Both have been told numerous times throughout history because they are Archetypes.

Again, personnally I enjoy LotR since I enjoy the epic story more. However, I think both are classics.

Kenneth
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,912
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Kenneth,

I definitely agree w/ your general descriptions of the two there.

But even based on what you've said, is it not pretty clear that the theme (or sub-theme) of how good overcomes evil is very much the same, namely good cannot use evil methods to overcome evil? And in both cases, we find that power in the form of Yang tends to be easily corrupted and tends toward evil?

I can understand why Lew thinks they are not the same because Tolkien does not make the distinctions so clear w/in LotR itself (as you've described). One does need to read beyond LotR to see the full scope of the Tolkien fantasy world whereas it's far more plainly presented w/in the SW Trilogy. In LotR, we do not get to know clearly that power can be wielded by the good side as greatly as in SW Trilogy. We only get to see that the heroes do not seem to possess such power and must always finese their way to victory. But if one goes deeper and/or reads the rest of Tolkien's writings, one will find the same "power corrupts" theme, and true enough, it does not always corrupt either.

Meanwhile, in the SW Trilogy, we do get to see Jedi's w/ power that should be able to rival the dark side, but yet, it is quite clear that the good side does not defeat the dark side by the might of power -- think of it as the Taoist Yang, but the dark side has pushed that Yang too far, too fast (ie. the short cut) leading into evil.

I think Lew misunderstands what I mean by "power corrupts" even though I tried to spell things out at reasonable length. It's pretty clear that power does corrupt in the SW Trilogy much like it corrupts in our real world. Does that make sense? IOW, as I tried to say, power is not intrinsically evil of course, *but* it is indeed a strong temptation for the seeker and wielder of power. And it's easy for one to go astray in trying to master it and to use it in the brute force kind of way. Isn't that pretty clear in the SW Trilogy even though it's not quite so clear in LotR? And don't we use the phrase "power corrupts" (or "money is the root of all evil") in that way in the real world? Well, that is what I meant, if it did not seem clear before.

The main difference that muddies the comparison is that LotR does not give us clear indications that there ever is the kind of power for the good side that could rival that of Sauron's and his ring whereas we are plainly told in SW Trilogy that such power exists on the good side both in the past via characters like Yoda and going forward in Luke. But the result is still the same really since Luke clearly did not use power to overcome the Emperor -- not anymore than say Sam or Merry had to wield a sword in battle to contribute to the cause. In both instances, it was ultimately the good Yin that prevailed over the evil Yang, not some good Yang that prevailed over the evil Yang.

The example of the good side fearing to even touch the Ring in LotR is analogous to Jedi's steering clear of any temptations from the Dark Side, which typically worked through uncontrolled emotions about personally affecting events, eg. Luke's personal feelings to Vader before finding out the truth. That there is not clearly tangible object in the SW Trilogy to focus this temptation does not negate its existence.

Also, I do think it a bit naive to assume that Luke should only be compared to one individual (ie. Frodo) or that the Jedi should be compared to Hobbits only. If one read closer, actually, the Jedi probably resembles the Numenoreans more than any other race and Luke is actually some sort of a combination of both Aragorn and Frodo.

Yes, I will agree w/ Lew that Lucas probably did not think as deeply about the movies while he was making them as Tolkien did. However, Lucas did borrow from sources that probably did much of that homework for him already. It's just that he did not reinvent the wheel and probably could've done a bit better job at cobbling the pieces together. And as we see him work on and complete the prequels right now, we do see him attempt to iron things out better so the pieces fall more neatly together. One should also realize that Tolkien actually approached the creation of the complete LotR mythology (not just the LotR books themselves) in much the same way as Lucas has w/ the Star Wars films (and back stories). It's just that we're now privied to the whole process that Lucas has been going through from the first movie to the very last upcoming one whereas few of us were so privied to the same when Tolkien was do his work at creating his fantasy world and mythology.

I'd like to comment on one final thing that seems to be implied in both Lew's and Kenneth's most recent replies -- or maybe I just read too much into it. :D While I do find SW Trilogy to be more entertaining (and only by a small margin), that does not mean that I think it's a critically better trilogy of movies than LotR. Certainly, the LotR story is clearly the better critically speaking w/ far more rich textures and fine details to it than the SW Trilogy. And as I pointed out before, probably the only reason why I find SW Trilogy to be more entertaining is that I grew up w/ it *and* it does not have something big to live upto like the LotR films do. If the timings and roles were reversed, I'm sure enjoy LotR more than SW Trilogy, and perhaps, I might not even be able to stand all the hockum in SW Trilogy much like I can't stand it in the prequels. :D

_Man_
 

Kenneth

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 31, 1997
Messages
757

I actually don't find Frodo to be the key hero of LotR. To me it is Samwise. I would compare Luke with Aragorn more than Frodo. Luke is the only person (like Aragorn) who can assume the mantle required to lead the forces of light to victory. Frodo actually fails in his quest and it is only by chance (or predestination) that the forces of good win. Luke has to choose between life serving the dark side or death serving the light and chooses light. It is by making that choice that he wins and turns his Father (Darth Vader) back to the light.

As I have said, lots of layers to both.

Kenneth
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,912
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Well, then I guess we will have to agree to disagree a little on some of the finer points. But yes, in general, I agree w/ what you're saying. I think we're just looking at somethings from different perspectives, and then, there might also be matters of symmantics that keep us from complete agreement.

My main contention was really just w/ Lew's interpretation of things since he feels that the two are completely (and practically diametrically) different regarding how evil or the practitioners of evil were conquered.

I'm not sure why you guys feel that I think the main theme of the movies is "power corrupts" even though I repeatedly and explicitly said it's just one theme or sub-theme and very similar to what we think of the saying in the real world. When one says "power corrupts" in the real world, one does not assume that is always true for everyone, but rather, it merely serves as a warning that the temptations are strong and real and that one should not take it too lightly. That is all. To read more than that into it would be silly, IMHO. And likewise, I made it pretty clear that it was just one theme out of various of which there is also the theme of redemption. Indeed, I would say that the theme of redemption is what ultimately helps each trilogy resolve itself to a satisfying ending that most people can be happy about. And yes, just as "power corrupts" in each story, faith, hope and love (and self-sacrifices, promises fulfilled, etc.) serves and leads to redemption.

_Man_
 

Kenneth

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 31, 1997
Messages
757
I guess we can agree to disagree then. Personnally I don't think power is a theme (or subtheme) of either story. The sin that ultimately leads to the downfall of both the emperor and Sauron is pride (or hubris). Pride is the dominant sin in the LotR's where people fall into destruction. I would agree that SW does have a theme of redemption where Luke redeems Vader from his sin of pride. I would also argue that LotR has that theme in Faramir and Aragorn. Faramir redeems Boromir by making the choice his brother could not and Aragorn redeems Isuldur for the same reasons.

I also disagree with Lew's assessment that power is more important in SW. The victory of Luke is when he refuses to fight and chooses a noble death rather than an ignoble life. The conclusion of LotR is actually due to elements of blind chance or predestination when Frodo succombs at the last moment and it is actually Gollum who completes the quest (if one wanted to push the redemption theme this most likely redeemed Gollum). So in LotR not even choice comes into play.

Maybe this is what I should have written my term paper on in the LotR class I took instead of Bombadil :D

Kenneth
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,912
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Lol! There is certainly plenty of interesting elements in these stories that could be used in a term paper. That I can definitely agree on. :D

Ok, now that you've clarified your position some more, yes, I agree w/ you that much more. And yes, I would agree that the underlying pride is what really led to the fall of the various people/characters in both stories. Yes, I agree that power in its purest form does not really corrupt, but is neutral actually. But there is great temptation involved when imperfect people (and even angels/ainur) cross paths w/ great power. That is really what the saying "power corrupts" refers to underneath AFAIK -- of course, if one's beliefs/philosophy/perspective glorifes pride, then one might not see it as so :D.

But I do also think that it is a bit harder to see these elements clearly in LotR due to the sheer wealth of details that can easily overwhelm the average viewer/reader who is not particularly familiar w/ the books and/or Tolkien's own background. And if one only saw the theatrical version of the films, well, one would be missing even more clues to what the real themes are. :D Certainly, nobody that I personally know was able to grasp all of the hints and nuisances of the story just by watching the films w/out reading the books also. And even those who read the books, but not other Tolkien writings like the Silmarillians would be very hard pressed to "get" it all.

Meanwhile, the Star Wars Trilogy does simplify its story a whole lot in comparison to LotR.

BTW, Kenneth, I find it interesting that you seem to feel that there is a substantial element of predestination vs chance (or maybe even free will) in considering these stories. Is this purely a theme fleshed out by the coursework (IIRC) that you did in college(?) or is this somehow a part of your own views about life and all that? :D

Anyway, going back to my own preferences between the two, I'll add that the more I rewatch these films, yes, the more I do lean towards LotR over the SW Trilogy...

_Man_
 

Kenneth

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 31, 1997
Messages
757
The predestination comments come mainly from the class although I personnally do believe in fate or chance (guess it goes with being born in the year of the Dragon :) ). It is hard to escape the predestination elements in LotR though:

1. There are references to Bilbo and correspondingly Frodo being meant to have the ring. These comments are present in both the movies and books.

2. They note Frodo's and Hobbit's resistance to the effects of the ring over other races of Middle Earth (making them the only race capable of destroying it).

3. They note that sparing Gollum was important and that he might have a purpose yet to play. Although this was clearly a literary foreshadowing device also.

4. The incident with Shelob, although harsh, ends up being the only way that they could have entered Mordor safely to destroy the ring.

5. At the edge of Mount Doom Frodo fails in his quest and tries to become the dark lord himself. It is Gollum who removes the ring and in an element of pure chance (or predestination) falls to his death destroying the ring.

There is not a hard predestination approach taken (where no one has choice) but a predestination approach where if the proper choices are made then the end is assurred. The movie breaks from this approach more than the book (where Frodo makes the wrong choice with Samwise before Shelob; a choice that he did not make in the book). Also, after the discussion on redemption as a theme I began to think of the role of Gollum as his redemption (although that might be somewhat of a stretch).

Kenneth
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,830
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top