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

[Eric Bass]

Star Wars will be the more entertaining movie naturally since it was created, from the start, as a movie.

LOTR is an attempt, and an ambitious one, at taking a very long, very dense, piece of literature and creating a film adaptation of it.

That about sums it up in the whole darn debate. All the 'read the books' references and all the debates boil down to this. Lord of the Rings is a novel, Star Wars is a movie. Of course Star Wars is going to flow better, have plently of time to spend on the key characters, and have better neato action scenes. Of course LOTR has the more developed story. Simply because it is a novel and the story is much more complex than the Star Wars one. That's not a slight, but just a result of the mediums each was created in.

The characters are definately more stressed in Star Wars. As mentioned above, it's about the characters. It's about Luke's fight with the dark side as he becomes a Jedi. The story is relatively simple. Luke's the one hope for the alliance in their hopeless war with the galactic empire and he struggles with temptation as he develops his skills. In the meantime we factor in some soap opera sub-plots (Little love issues with the princess and Han/Luke in IV, Vader being Luke's father, then Luke's sister being revealed) and you've got a very entertaining film with some nice spiritual background and some great action scenes.

LOTR is more story driven. Tolkien created himself a world and then wrote a story about it. The story is about good/vs evil, not about Frodo. Frodo's a main character, but the point of the story is definately not about how the quest of the ring changes him. His changing is a part of the story, but not the main focus. Nor is it about his internal struggle with the ring's power to corrupt. None of the characters are the main focus of the story. Tolkien created himself a world and wrote a story that takes place there. The story is, more than anything else, about the world itself. That's why there is so much detail and that's why the movie spends so much time just showing us things rather than having the characters sit around and chat.

 

[Sean Bryan]

I'm not sure if this has been clarified yet in this thread, but I wanted to comment on this.

As for the question asking: "If FOTR flopped, would the other two have been made?"

That is not a dumb question at all. It's a very reasonable question in regard to most movies or "planned trilogies". The only problem is that it is really a moot question. All three films were made at the same time. Period. The other two were ALREADY MADE way before FOTR could have even had the opportunity to flop.

The only possible problem if FOTR flopped (in regard to this particular UNIQUE situation) was would it effect the post production/effects budget of the next two films.

My personal feeling is that while A New Hope IS the first part of a film trilogy (that can be viewed as one larger epic tale), it was clearly made to be able to stand on its own (if it needed to). When I saw Star Wars as a kid I loved it. After the movie, I had no sense that there was more to the story that needed to be told (admittedly a 7 year old's perspective). As an adult, even a teenager, you can understand that Darth Vader is still out there and the Empire has not been defeated (there's more story that CAN be told). But as a young kid, the goodguys won, the big ultimate weapon was destoyed, and the heros were all rewarded. Yes, this movie is part of a trilogy (maybe one that was always planned to be three parts from the very begining). But it was clearly made to be able to stand on its own as a self-contained story.

The Empire Strikes Back, on the other hand.....

When I saw it as a kid, I enjoyed it. But at the end, I was a little disappointed to be left hanging. Is Darth Vader really his father?! What's going to happen to Han?! (Now, as an adult, I definitely love The Empire Strikes Back the most and feel it is the best picture of the trilogy.) This is an example of a movie that (while it can kind of stand on it own) is clearly not ment to stand alone....it demands that the story be continued in the next movie.

The Fellowship of the Ring STARTS there. It can kind of stand on its own, but its really not ment to. It is the first part of a SINGLE story. It's not ment to be a self contained story in any way. It's not one single story that can be viewed as part of a larger story. It is the first third of a single story. It's not until the end of the third and final movie/book that "the goodguys won, the big ultimate weapon was destoyed, and the heros were all rewarded"


So, in my opinion, FOTR cannot be fairly compared to A New Hope or the Original Trilogy. The only honestly fair comparison would be to either compare the complete "Lord of the Rings" trilogy to A New Hope, or (as I'm sure others will insist) the complete "Lord of the Rings" trilogy to the complete original "Star Wars" trilogy. But no matter how you slice it, they are different types of trilogies. I'd even argure that The Lord of the Rings isn't really a trilogy. It's one single 9 (hopefully more) hour movie broken up into three parts. Two totally different animals.

As far as the "Bilbo thing":

Cleary, the movie doesn't tell you why Bilbo was where he was when he found the ring. But I'm not sure the details of that were necessary for this movie.

Things that were in the movie that I think gave enough of a hint about those circumstances and his character for the sake of THIS story:

Bilbo had lots of maps around his house.

Bilbo was telling hobbit children of a time when he and his companions were caputed by trolls, but the trolls were debating how to cook them, didn't realize the sun was coming up, and then turned to stone in the sunlight.

Gandalf refered to "that incident with the Dragon". What incident? What dragon? Don't know? Well, doesn't it at least hint that this guy has had an interesting past for a hobbit?

Bilbo is close friends with a wizard. You might think that they didn't become close friends just sitting in Bilbo's living room.

Frodo told Sam: "Bilbo used to say, "You have to be careful when you're on the road, because it can sweep you away and there's no telling where it might take you.'"

Biblo said to Gandalf: "I want to see mountains again"

In Rivendel, Bilbo told Frodo specifically that he had wanted to go exploring again, but he was never able to because age finally caught up with him.

And finally, Frodo told Bilbo that he didn't know if he could go on this quest and do what needed to be done. I specifically remember him saying, "I'm not like you Bilbo.".

Now (get ready for a BIG LEAP here!) from all of this which WAS presented IN THE MOVIE, couldn't one come to the conclusion that Bilbo was not like typical hobbits and had been on adventures (involving Gandalf) in the past? Simple conclusion based on what was given to the viewer in the movie.

Is it such a huge leap to think, "Ok, so this dude has been on adventures and I guess it was on one of them that he came across the ring."? I don't think so. And I also think that's all we needed for this movie.

If you feel the need to know the exact circumstances, hopefully you'll get to experience that if they do a "The Hobbit" movie. But the Fellowship of the Ring gave enough hints/suggestion/info that a viewer should be able to draw the conclusions I made above with no prior knowledge. I admit Peter Jackson doesn't beat you over the head with this, but it's there if you care.

Another thing I thought was a good line that gave you an idea about hobbits in general but that also seems relevant in a discussion about "character development" of Hobbits was when Gandalf said: "You can learn everything about their ways in a month, but after 100 years they can still surprise you." I think that one line says alot about what to expect from hobbits.

 

[Sean Bryan]

While it probably would have been best if this thread stayed dead, it seems only fair to post a link to Salon's counter argument article:
Salon's LOTR is better counter argument
Ya know, for shits and giggles

 

[Paul Jenkins]

His arguments on Frodo versus Luke was real weak. His review lacks substance and depth, and is not nearly as well written as the original, IMHO. As for the Sam scene, easily one of the worst in the movie IMHO, yet he thinks it one of the best. Go figure...

 

[Terrell]

Oh Lord, another 10 pages of arguments coming up. I'll sit this one out. I'd just be rehashing myself anyway.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I won't sit it out, it's my bread and butter
Anyways, it's all a matter of opinion. The facts are that SW has made more money (and that will not change). It will probably remain more popular as well. LOTR received significantly more INITIAL critical praise, and did far better than expected while facing FAR more stiff competition at the BO (ever wonder that LOTR faces comparisons with both SW and HP, but no one compares HP and SW). As much as I wish my opinion were recognized as fact (as it should be), it is not, or this forum would be me pontificating (again, as it should be)
Anyways, who cares what some reporter thinks What do YOU think, and why? At least the discussion is fun!
You know what I think,
Chuck

 

[Terrell]

As much as I wish my opinion were recognized as fact (as it should be), it is not, or this forum would be me pontificating (again, as it should be)

Don't we all. It's all in the tastes and opinions of other. This all comes down to which you like best, as to which reporter you'll support. And there's nothing wrong with that. Based on my viewing of FOTR, I like all 3 original Star Wars films more and think they're better, and I've stated why. However, my opinion is not law. Star Wars is my all-time favorite franchise and films. It's a pity nobody has figured that out yet. But I can understand and respect if someone feels the opposite. But the fact is, Star Wars is better, and there's no denying that.............GOTCHA! Just kidding. Had you going there for a minute.
Wait a minute! I thought I was done with posting in this thread.

 

[Stephen_L]

I'm a long time fan of the LOTR books (over 25 years) and while I love Jackson's film passionately, I can empathize with the complaints made about the film's character development. Jackson faced a task that was daunting in many ways. First he had to bring a deep, highly detailed story to life in a way that would satisfy both confirmed LOTR addicts like me and still be accessable to folks who have never read the books. Second he faced daunting time constraint in condensing a huge book with many characters into a three hour movie. Finally he had to make a sequel, when the original film was not made. "The Hobbit" is the appropriate first chapter of this tale; it reveals the nature of the world of Middle Earth and all the varied races within it as well as introducing the reader to critical characters like Bilbo, Gandalf, Gollum and the Ring. FOTR takes a running start from Bilbo's story and dives right into Frodo's tale. Anyone who has not at least read the Hobbit will have a tough time figuring out the world and its races in just a short introduction. So if you're not familiar with the books I can understand how it seems characters were introduced in short-hand and not always clearly developed.

I feel Peter Jackson did an admirable job of tackling these problems and I will give him the two more films to add more character development.

 

[Terrell]

I feel Peter Jackson did an admirable job of tackling these problems and I will give him the two more films to add more character development.

Agreed! Hopefully, character development will commence with TTT. If not, if we get more of the same as FOTR, I'll be disappointed. I liked and enjoyed FOTR, but I feel it needs to slow down and have more scenes and interaction between characters, instead of a steady chase and onslaught. I'd like more battles, but some slower more intimate scenes as well. I'd just like for their to be some difference between the two films. I'll certainly be there opening night for TTT.

 

[Sean Bryan]

The "Sam scene" was excellent.

One of the most moving in the film.

 

[Seth Paxton]

David Echo has 2 of the best posts so far.
Point 1 - characters must change to be good. Yi Yi is totally opposite of this. Characters look for change and find out that they prefer to go back to what they were at the beginning. Memento is another excellent example.
Point 2 - ANH WAS filmed/written as a single film with no continued narrative. We have a resolution (total defeat of the enemy, as far as we know within the ANH narrative), we have celebration. Without a 2nd film we have a complete story.
ANH had a built-in CONNECTOR to ALLOW for other films, like so many films do for the "just in case" sequel. Vader flies off into space. But other than that, we have no reason to think the rebels haven't won and that Han hasn't made the money to pay off Jabba.
ESB opens up NEW THREADS or reopens CLOSED THREADS from ANH. And ESB IS a film that is written to span 2 films, unlike ANH. The story-arc in ESB is Luke becoming a Jedi, which is unfinished by the end of that film. This is more like FOTR than ANH.
FOTR WAS 3 films, always. No possiblity AT ALL of less. Why? Because the money on principle shooting was already spent. Therefore, while New Line might have cut post-production spending, they would HAVE to release the other 2 films to try and recoup at least a little bit of money.
And certainly, whether this is true or not is moot. Jackson MADE FOTR as part 1 only, no matter what happened at the box office. He didn't bring it too a close and then leave a "lego block connector" on the end to attach a 2nd film, ala ANH.
I love Star Wars, but it clearly is a single film with no threads left unclosed (except the Vader "there might be a sequel" spinning away in space thing).
FOTR was about 3 characters Gandalf, Boromir, and the Fellowship as a group. All 3 had very serious thread endings (all dead). The narrative arc in the first 180 minutes of the story is anchored on these stories, while the longer stories (like Frodo, Aragorn) are just in their foundation stages. It was written and filmed to be that way.
Boromir is 100% a good guy BTW. He didn't want to hurt Frodo at any point, only to take the ring. And he didn't want to use it against the Fellowship or it's allies, he intended to use it to allow Gondor to defeat Sauron. That's the same goal they all want.
He was just making a mistake in what he was trying to do.
His story tells us the reason that FRODO breaks the Fellowship (which is the only reason it does break). Frodo now knows that none of the Fellowship can hope to resist the ring, although Aragorn says he would have. Frodo has learned this from being told, but also because of what happens to Boromir.
He didn't hate Boromir or see him as evil. He knew he was a great hero. It is the fact that Boromir could be blinded by the ring which tells Frodo that he can no longer travel with the group.
If Boromir is evil then the group doesn't break apart. At the very least Aragorn would go with Frodo and leave Gimli and Legolas to find Merry and Pippen.
And since Frodo doesn't know Merry and Pippen were caught, he would have expected the WHOLE group to stay with him. That is, as I say, if he thought Boromir was simply evil and was corrupted due to this evil.
But Frodo purposely leaves the entire group behind...because Boromir is a GOOD GUY.
Finally, there is one other character that we learn about that I didn't mention...The Ring. We certainly learn a great deal about it's power and "thinking".
But there are so many story arcs that are really going to flesh out in TTT, and so many others that will just begin in TTT and not finish until RotK.

 

[Terrell]

But there are so many story arcs that are really going to flesh out in TTT, and so many others that will just begin in TTT and not finish until RotK.

Just as in AOTC and Episode III, and the downfall of Anakin. So in that essence, they compare. Again, my comments in comparing the two were always comparing FOTR to ANH, and ANH. I was not comparing FOTR to the entire trilogy. There would be no point in that.

 

[Matt Stone]

Nice breakdown Seth...I agree with you 100%.