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

[Seth Paxton]

And it is surprisingly easy to distract a ring wraith from his immortal duty with a piece of food thrown desperately from a makeshift hiding place."

 

[Seth Paxton]

Terrell said

But there is no one correct answer. Some people like LOTR better than Star Wars. And vice versa.

Yeah, I think the article would have played better if this was it's point. But instead she went for how FOTR FAILED TO BE Star Wars???
I certainly don't expect AOTC to be like The Matrix, Potter, FOTR, BTTF, or anything else. Heck, my only problem with TPM is that to me it wasn't enough like the OT. Who gives a shit if a different film that is not trying to be another film, fails to be that other film??
Now that I think about it, Hedwig was no Rocky Horror Picture Show either.
The only comparision between SW, Potter, LOTR is in scale of the pictures and fantasy settings. I wouldn't really even think of Potter walking in SW's footsteps, nor do I think that was the intent.
Comparing films' effects on society is one thing, blasting them for not being enough like the other is something else.

 

[Tom-G]

I never understood the comparisons between Star Wars and LOTR to begin with. Can't we all just like what we like and stop looking at is as a competition?

I remember when The Phantom Menace came out, there was a website that tracked the daily box office take of TPM, in effect counting down the days until Star Wars was the box office champ again. Does anyone really hinge their enjoyment of a film simply on box office success? I never have. Hell, if that was the case, I would hate great films like Fight Club and GoodFellas.

If the writer of the article would have lodged complaints that LOTR would be enjoyed more by fans of the book, that's one thing. But she didn't and she came off as being biased.

 

[Terrell]

Like I said, she likes Star Wars. If someone who liked LOTR wrote an article saying how it overshadowed and was better than Star Wars, the whole situation would be reversed, and Star Wars fans would be tearing her arguments down. I think she made some strong points. Some of her points were not so strong. For me, the characters in Star Wars were developed more, and were far more memorable to me. But that's a different argument. Maybe to her, it LOTR didn't have the kind of effect on her that Star Wars did.

Again, your argument is totally dependent upon which side you fall on. I fall on the side that, at least to me, both ANH and ESB were better. And ROTJ was every bit as good in terms of story telling as ANH and ESB, with some of the most memorable scenes in the Star Wars saga appearing in ROTJ. So for me, all three Star Wars films were better. So that's the side I fall on. But considering Star Wars are my favorite films, would you expect anything different from me?

As for the article, she had to come down on one side. Was she biased? Maybe! But she would be just as biased if it were the other way around. The films aren't all that comparable to me. They very different. But you knew she had to pick one over the other. Or what was the point of the article.

 

[Mike Broadman]

It's a shame that people feel they need to have "sides" at all.

 

[Tom-G]

I agree, Terell. I even like TPM better than LOTR. But that's not to say that LOTR had to be another film that I loved like Star Wars. There hasn't been too much criticizing of LOTR and it appears as if some of the fans are having trouble with that. It was a good film, not a great film and since so many people seem to look at this as a competition, it was inevitable that an article like this would surface.

 

[Terrell]

Mike, you don't at least prefer one over the other? There's nothing wrong with that. It becomes wrong when fans won't allow themselves to at least try and enjoy another film in a genre because it may compete or compare with their favorites. Like the films are theirs anyway.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Mike, you don't at least prefer one over the other?

To be honest, I really don't know. I like Star Wars, sure, who doesn't? In college, me and my buddies threw around Star Wars references all the time. Star Wars is part of our collective cultural conscious.

Episode I and all the hype and crap around it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, though.

I also love the LOTR books. All kidding aside, the stories really are special to me. And, quite frankly, the movie was so much better than I had expected, given my lack of faith in the current state of movies.

Comparing LOTR to the original Star Wars trilogy is like comparing Mike Tyson to Mohammed Ali, Radiohead to Pink Floyd, or Seinfeld to the Honeymooners. Each was around in different times and must be taken in different contexts.

Seriously, how can you compare a classic space movie from 1977 with a sword & sorcery fantasy movie from 2001? I just don't get it.

It might be more reasonable to compare Fellowship to Episode I (both came out around the same time, and both are the first in a trilogy). But you don't see a lot of this, because, and let's be honest here, the Star Wars fanboys know they don't have a prayer of convincing anyone that Ep I can hold a candle to Fellowship. So, they schlepp out the older movies to try to "prove" how Felloship stinks.

What a sad waste of energy.

At this very moment, I like Fellowship, because I just saw it and the images of Boromir, Gandalf, and Galadriel are still swimming around my brain. But I'm not taking "sides:" it's just absurd.

 

[Paul Jenkins]

What a sad waste of energy.

with all due respect, don't post to the thread then. The thread is about the comparison that the article has brought up. Many have made great points about what the author of the article missed, or how they misread or didn't read enough into the movie, or needed to see it again, or whatever. Some people like comparisons, some people like the different points regarding different film styles, and even the point on how the audience has changed as well.

Simple concept, don't like what the thread is about, don't post....

 

[Mike Broadman]

Many have made great points about what the author of the article missed

Yeah, including myself. It's one thing to have fun little discussions like this, but some people get pretty hardcore with it, taking the joy out of watching movies. That's the waste of energy I was referring to.

 

[Paul Case]

I thought this was an interesting article, if a bit amateurish. The writer really does contradict herself in quite a few places, especially towards the end. Anyway, I don't really understand the need to compare the two films in the first place. I love both of them, though Star Wars and all of its siblings will always be first in my heart.
I'm just happy that I will be getting new Star Wars AND Lord of the Rings movies all in the space of one year!

 

[Paul Jenkins]

That's the waste of energy I was referring to.

I agree, the hardcore people are a bit over the top, hence the term 'hardcore' (wasn't that a George C. Scott movie? )

 

[Eric Bass]

It was a good film, not a great film

I see this point of view, since pretty much the same thing I argue with Ep I fans. If you factor in writing/acting/directing Ep I is not a good film. I don't care if people like it or not, it just bothers me when people try to argue that it's not a bad film. That's not a judgement on anyone, there are plently of bad films that I enjoy. And I'd agree Fellowship of the Ring probably isn't a great film, I'd definately rate it very good and it's an A+ effort, but it had some problems. So I can see it being annoying to some people that every Tolkien fan is out there stating this is the best cinema ever. By the way, I'm a huge Tolkien geek/fan.

 

[Sam Davatchi]

I don’t agree with that article concerning what it says about FOTR but the good thing is that at least it compares it with the original Star Wars. The writer doesn’t consider TPM worthy of comparison or anything!

 

[Terrell]

Mike, I agree! They really shouldn't be comapred. But what I was saying is that it seems plausible that you'd like one of the two movies better than the other. Take a stand my friend. It's okay to prefer one over the other, regardless of your choice.
As for TPM being a good film or not. I thought it was good, though not great. Regardless, I enjoyed the hell out of it. I wasn't expecting the originals all over again, and wasn't expecting it to give me the same feeling as the originals. This is a different film, with different settings, characters, and story. If that means you think I have bad taste, so be it.

 

[Eric Bass]

Heh heh, we clash again Terrell. I wouldn't say bad taste...just different
I still feel TPM is not a good film, but then again I was so let down that the bitterness could be clouding my judgement. I think I'd have been happy if it at least would have had the feelings of the first, the good vs evil struggle both galactially and spiritually. I know everyone maintains that the original Star Wars movies weren't great writing/acting either..but they had some soul. This time around I feel like we just got an FX show with some bad comic relief and one kick-butt jedi fight. If the next two really convey a feeling of tradgedy at the ruin of the 'more civilized age' as Ben puts it in ANH then I'll be more than happy. But I think they have already failed at the first part since they didn't really give a good feeling of how good the universe is before Anakin shows up. The senate scenes are great and show how the politics of the age open the door for the emporer to step in, but we don't really see what's about to be lost anywhere.

 

[Terrell]

Well, that's where a lot of people and I disagree. I think the originals had tremendous writing. One of the things that made them great was the simplicity. Saying so much with such simple dialogue. When I say simple, I don't mean bad. And I always considered the acting good. Certainly not bad. Certainly not the greatest acting. But good nonetheless.

I guess if you want to compare the acting in Star Wars to the acting in Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and Ben-Hur, then yes, I guess you could say it doesn't stack up. But to compare it to most fantasy films and popcorn flicks like The Mummy, Tomb Raider, and Armageddon, it far surpasses the acting in films like that. To me, there is not a single acting performance that detracts from the original films.

 

[Seth Paxton]

BTW, I'm a LOTR nut, but I think the OT kicks FOTR ass film-wise. At least in terms of how the films make me buy into the ride.
I think FOTR could have been that, but to do so would have gone against what the story is about. And the only way to fully capture the books magic would be with a longer running time.
Again when you are simply making a film, a pure scripted story, you can write scenes to fit. This is why you get different Oscars for original and adapted. And I'm sure some foolish people think the adapted is a total waste since a person didn't come up with the idea, but I'm certain that the FOTR writers/producers would tell you what a bitch the process can be.
Trying to create film magic while capturing the book's magic at the same time, especially when they are sometimes at odds, is quite a challenge.
I'm honestly have doubts that Lucas could have made a good FOTR. But who cares, Lucas made a great OT and Raiders (w/SS). Hell he also made a great American Graffiti and THX-1138.
I'll give you another great example of the challenge - QT has perfectly designed dialog/scenes/cuts & shots in his first 2 films. In both Pulp and R.Dogs there is an amazing blend where everything serves each other, story to style, music to visual, at least in popular critical opinion.
Then you get Jackie Brown, clunkier at times and a bit more forced. Why? Adapted material. Suddenly you are applying your vision to their story. The story doesn't have moments written for how they will look on screen, so they don't always play as well. Change them too much to fit your style and you don't have the original source anymore, leave them as is and you aren't even a filmmaker at that point.
In that regard PJ pulled off a miracle, and it's probably why so many are willing to cut him some slack on some things.
As for making her point about "new audiences", why bother with FOTR? Couldn't she stick to apples and apples and look at a director/writer/producer making a trilogy of films in the same storyline as a previous trilogy he made??
If you want a case for eye candy and lowered expectations, why not just say ANH vs. TPM?? Same genre, some creator, same characters, same settings.
All of this rant aside, I never find it a waste of time to compare and analyze films. So we like different films, the fun question is WHY? Pinpointing those sorts of answers gives a deeper appreciation of film, as it does with any art form.
And that's something that everyone in Movies should agree upon.

 

[Terrell]

I'll agree with you on that Seth. LOTR has it difficult from the standoint at respectfully bringing and adapting a book like LOTR is incredibly difficult. And even though I didn't think LOTR was as great as a lot of people here did, he should be commended for doing a great job.

However, I do think Lucas could have made a great LOTR, as long as he had a consultant. Whether he would be better or worse is something I don't know. But Jackson did a great job. Pleasing hardcore fans and casual moviegoers is extremely difficult.

 

[Ryan Peter]

A Lucas LOTR? Hmm, well it's interesting to think about.