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

[Lew Crippen]

Even though I don’t think that any valid comparison can be made between these movies, I started playing, so I guess I’ll continue for a bit.

A major difference between the Star Wars world and Middle Earth is that in Goerge Lucas’ vision, power is overcome by equally strong power. Those without power are not able to succeed over those who are powerful.

So while Luke is shown to be a humble farm boy with aspirations, he is in fact the heir to a long, glorious tradition—one which aspires to master a power of the universe and that mastery can only be done by those who can feel and use this universal power. Now of course the mastery requires training and such—but it is a given that those who use the force for evil can only be beaten by those who also use the force—the universe of Star Wars is one where (almost) unlimited power exists and is controlled and used to achieve ends—both for good and for bad.

In Middle Earth, no such power exists (at least as a native part of that world). The ultimate construct for power was an artifact (the one ring) and it did not exist until made. And it could be undone by the destruction of the ring.

The point in Tolkien’s mythology is that great power is not required to overcome great power. In fact it is shown that wielding great power in Middle Earth is to become consumed by it—and therefore it is only by not exercising power that the destruction of great power can be achieved.

 

[Holadem]

Why is such fine discussion being burried in Polls?!

--
H

 

[Quentin]

Yeah...this IS movie conversation, yes? A lot of interesting discussion going on here. Not a simple vote. Did it get moved due to the thread title?

Back to movies!

 

[Carlo_M]

To me, as big fans of both trilogies, they do have some flaws.

To pick a "desert island" trilogy, I'd have to go with Star Wars. The original version, thank you. I won't even launch into an SE/DVD version discussion.

Why Star Wars? Many, many reasons, but here's three biggies:

1. I was so intimately familiar with LoTR (the novel) that a lot of PJ's changes don't sit well with me. Sure, I will agree that he's a better director than Lucas, heck even a better writer, but he changed an awful lot from the book that I felt DIDN'T need to be changed (and still would have made an effective, if not MORE effective, scene for his movies). The changes I felt were unnecessary include Sam's character, Faramir's character, The Ents character & portrayal, Gandalf's character and others.

2. Someone earlier said that he felt emotions "were forced upon you by LoTR [movies]". To this I agree. Subtlety is not one of Jackson's strong suits (nor is infrequent use of rotating helicopter shots to convey "vastness of landscape"--geez, lucky I don't suffer from vertigo). A lot of LoTR scenes made the point "YOU MUST FEEL THIS WAY" with its heavy handed directing. The story is strong enough on its own, just tell it, without embellishment, and the emotion will come. I kind of wish someone had hired Frank Darabont for the screenplay--he knows how to respect original source material and transcribe it onscreen.

3. Speaking of screenplay, how about Philippa "I'm Here To Correct Tolkien's Errors" Boyens?

Despite all of these misgivings I have towards LoTR, the essential story was strong enough to still get through and make these enjoyable movies. But instead of the A+ score I'd like to give films based on what I consider to be the greatest fiction novel I've ever read, these changes knock it down to a B+. Still good, but could have been so much better.

The Empire Strikes Back, to me, the closest to film perfection Hollywood has gotten since The Godfather I and II. Star Wars is an exceptional film (though I rank it just shy of ESB). And like the GF films, they are plagued by a weak[er] third act. Despite that third act, it does nothing to diminish what was sheer movie magic in the first two movies.

Unlike SW, the LoTR trilogy ends with what might be the strongest of the films (especially after the Extended Edition comes out). But nothing in the LoTR moved me as much as The Empire Strikes Back.

So I guess I'm giving SW the edge based on my love for that 2nd act (and ironically, I find the 2nd act to be the weakest in LoTR).

Both trilogies are full of "woulda" "shoulda" "coulda". If Lucas had retained the creative minds who had input in the first two movies, not repeated the Death Star conceit, and made the third film BUILD on the tone Empire set, rather than try to revert it back to a more kid-friendly version...and for goodness sakes had NOT made Leia and Luks siblings (and "ick-ifying" a great moment in Empire), they really could have gone down as The Definitive Trilogy for the ages.

Had Jackson let someone with more restraint touch the screenplay, and had directed with a less heavy hand with regards to action and emotions (I mean, jeez, Helm's Deep is like less than 10% of the written book [TTT], but is about 20% of the TTT movie!) and stayed truer to the written version of several key main characters, that could have gone down as the definitive way to transcribe a beloved book to screen.

Bottom line, I love Star Wars, and I really like LoTR. Warts and all. But if I gotta pick one, I'd pick SW original versions.

"Bring my shuttle!"

PS - I'd take my Dark Tower books and Lord of the Rings novel before either of these DVDs to my desert island, though!

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Well, this is an excellent conversation.

I did want to reply to Lew that I feel his depiction of the difference between LOTR and SW to be fairly accurate.

That said, the key moment in both ESB and ROTJ occurs when the hero (Luke) rejects his power and chooses his friends or the love he bears his father. Based on that, the thematic elements are similar, though JRRT's are clearly more eloquent.

I did want to give the proper credit to SW.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Kenneth]

Well, Chuck hit my point about Luke rejecting power to win. Another point with Tolkien is his battle was a tad more epic. The people in LotR weren't just fighting an evil person or someone with evil powers they were fighting evil personified. Sauron was in essense a Luciferian figure since his mentor was Morgoth, Tolkien's equivalent of Satan. That changes your tactics somewhat, especially since Tolkien brought a lot of religious theory with him and that permeated his works.

Lucas was in essense telling the classic hero story (if you go with Joseph Campbell's take on it) and that had certain themes you are bound to. Campbell argued that it was because of that that SW hit a cord with so many and became so popular (he felt we were hungering for a return of the classic myth).

Seems like I keep arguing myself in circle by taking both sides I guess that's a problem when one is fond of both works.

Kenneth

 

[Robert Anthony]

I really can't believe I'm for real, getting in a debate about STar Wars vs LOTR.

(I'll do it quick, like pulling a band aid off a raw wound)


..


...Lord of the Rings are better crafted movies in every way.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Well, this isn't really a debate...more an educated discussion and sharing of personal opinions

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Ricardo C]

Don't get me started...

 

[Stephen_L]

I stand by my assertion that New Line took a much greater risk with LOTR than did Fox with SW. Fox gambled on one film from a filmmaker with a big film success (American Graffiti) under his belt. Science fiction while not blockbuster material yet, had seen moderate success with Planet of the Apes and 2001.

New Line committed to three films that would all fail if the first failed. They entrusted these films to a director with no commercial track record to brag about (though Heavenly Creatures was an excellent film) Finally fantasy HAD NEVER succeeded at the box office since the Wizard of Oz.

 

[Angelo.M]

Easy: Blue, White and Red, or the Samurai Triology.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Ok, I have a new winner for y'all, if not mentioned already. Fastforward to the bottom of this long post, if you want to know. :wink:

Andres Munoz wrote much earlier in the 1st page:

LOL! I was wondering when someone was gonna mention that as that's why I decided to take a peek over here.

Haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but I tend to agree w/ most of the sentiments on page 1. I would add the following thoughts:

While LOTR Trilogy does have more weight in many ways, I think Star Wars OT will always be the favorite amongst those who grew up watching it -- probably not the SE version though (or should that now be SE v0.7a? ).

For most people, it's just impossible to be all that objective about these movies -- that is, if anyone can really be objective about *any* movies at all -- so it's kinda pointless to debate the comparisons w/ any supposed objectivity. Even if there are a few people who can be reasonably objective, it won't matter that much to the rest of us.

Having said all that, I should say that I am indeed one of those people who grew up w/ Star Wars OT and can easily overlook all the silliness of this trilogy, even including the Ewoks. Yes, I will agree that RotJ is the weakest of the trilogy, but OTOH, it's fun enough to watch, especially w/ my 5/6-year-old kids, which is why I'm having a hard time about whether to buy the new DVDs or not. I actually own the trilogy on LD -- the THX ones w/ face -- but no longer have a working LD player for them. I even managed to get them transfered to DVDs by a fellow AVS member, but the transfers are nowhere near good DVD quality and tends to skip in my Philips player at seemingly random points. Very frustrating to say the least.

Anyway, back to my point. I think for pure entertainment value, the Star Wars OT still wins hands down for me. LotR is really a bit too long and dragged out a bit too much in certain places. And yes, before anyone wonders, I read the books back in my college days 15 years ago and have also read the Hobbit and Simarillians (which reads like the Old Testament vs LotR :wink and played D&D regularly (back then) and have checked out a few LotR-related websites, including one that charts out all the characters and info in all the Tolkien books , for fun and all that, so I'm actually an LotR fan though not as diehard as the ones who want every single detail included in the movies.

I think to me Peter Jackson fell into the same trap w/ certain overly dramatized moments that ironically Lucas did in Attack of the Clones. That music swelling forever w/ panning shot around the moment does wear my patience a bit, and that's one of the admittedly few things I fault PJ for. Oh, I don't mind that the films are long -- I'm not one to lose interest at the 1:30hr mark in good films -- and indeed like the extended versions more for the most part, but it's usually more about pacing and cohesive storytelling than mere length. And I think that's where the extended versions of LotR are better, especially in TTT:SE -- the theatrical TTT pace was too constant and hectic. Since we don't have RotK:SE yet, can't compare there, but I hope the new ending will be better paced inspite of all new footages they will probably add.

I think the pacing in the Star Wars OT are generally better and suits the flavor of the movies better than LotR. And as someone else said, the Star Wars OT also provided more of a dramatic story arc across the films while theatrical LotR tended to be a bit too constant w/ the brooding/ominous mood -- the extended versions return some of the missing brighter/lighter, more hopeful elements of the books, which are quite welcome. I'm reminded of Roger Ebert's review of FotR where he vaguely recalled that the books were really about hope in the midst of darkness and how that hope was found in the most unlikely of places and the most unlikely of peoples and regularly showed us hints of why these hobbits as the story builds towards its climax -- lots and lots of parallels to the Greatest Story Ever Told. However, the theatrical versions of the film lost sight of this most of the time until the 3rd act -- it played more to the summer blockbuster crowd than the books would.

Perhaps, my evaluation of LotR is a bit unfair due to my knowing the books and a lot of details surround them, but like I said earlier, we can't really be objective anyway. Just ask Roger Ebert.

Nevertheless, despite the faults I find in LotR, I do like it plenty enough to own the extended versions, but that's partly because I'm a sucker for this kind of movie *and* there haven't been too many such movies that can remotely compare to LotR. My wife definitely loves them more than I do -- I have never sat through all the documentary footages like she has for instance.

But for me, the Star Wars OT still holds a higher place for entertainment value even when it's so bad it's good. And let's face it. None of these are truly serious films anyway despite all the music swelling and overly melodramatic moments -- funny that LotR the books themselves are nowhere near as melodramatic as PJ's movies. Yeah, if I didn't grow up w/ it, I might be inclined to agree w/ Lew above and might even (*gasp*) hate Star Wars like a friend of mine -- of course, he doesn't like LotR either. OTOH, I do hate the Prequels so far, so there ya goes.

BTW, I should correct someone about the origins of Star Wars since that was brought up for comparison. Very many elements were actually borrowed from Hong Kong/Taiwanese wuxia flicks from the 70's, which were adapted from many Chinese wuxia novels written in the 60's and 70's. Lucas has certainly pointed to at least one such film (from the 80's) as one of his favorite flicks although that movie (Moon Warriors) was obviously not the direct source of influence for Star Wars OT. And yeah, that movie is terrible too, which may be why the SW Prequels are so bad. :wink: Anyway, think about it. Compare the Force in Star Wars to what you see in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon for example. CTHD was really just an homage to all the better Hong Kong/Taiwaneses wuxia films of the 60's and 70's w/ a little bit of Ang Lee's favorite influence Love Eterne (aka Butterfly Lovers from the 50's) thrown in. Star Wars really has a lot more in common w/ those Hong Kong/Taiwanese wuxia films than w/ the LotR books. And of course, those wuxia films also have a lot in common w/ certain other classic films from the various samurai classics to Spaghetti Westerns to the Godfather. Think about the idea of fate and destiny, about tragedy and irony, about the anti-hero, about honor even amongst thieves and/or outlaws (and/or rebels!), about the very famous line "just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in" and all the many other lines in the Godfather Trilogy, etc. etc.

You know. Now that I mention it, you guys forgot to include the Godfather Trilogy. THAT has got to be ranked higher than LotR and Star Wars even though people often denounce Part 3.

There ya goes! If nobody mentioned it yet, then I'll be the first to call for the new, unexpected winner of the Trilogy debate.

_Man_

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Angelo.M wrote:

Hmmm... After posting that long thing and declared Godfather Trilogy, barely caught the previous post just now, and hmmm... Not sure if I'd agree it's that easy, but if we want films that are about serious things, then I'd have to agree w/ the Three Color Trilogy, except I still haven't gotten around to watching White yet. For entertainment, I don't think I'd go w/ that trilogy though, but maybe that's just me. :wink:

_Man_

 

[Carlo_M]

I didn't forget The Godfather Trilogy - I mentioned it in my long ramble above. But I was just answering the thread header question: LoTR or SW.

Actually I too would take The Godfather over both SW and LoTR. I and II are about as good as filmmaking gets. III is pretty bad because it follows two of the greatest American films in history, but if you could find someone who had not seen I and II and showed them III I think they would rate it as a decent film.

I talked about "woulda" "shoulda" "coulda" for LoTR and SW, and I think the Godfathers suffer the most from this.

SPOILER ALERT FOR GODFATHER FILMS

Firstly, if Clemenza had not priced himself out of the second film, he would have been the betrayer rather than Pentageli. That would have been way more moving, because Clemenza was the last loyal Caporegime for the Corleones, with Tessio having betrayed them in I. And then, when he finally "came back" to the family by committing suicide rather than testify, that would have completed that circle more satisfactorily than Pentageli (whom we never met in I).

Secondly, if they had only paid Robert Duvall for III! That way, Connie doesn't have to do this unbelievable 180 degree turn from the snivelling weak sister she was in I and II, a change that is so unbelievable. The true irony would have been that Hagen would have had to become the ruthless one (having been Consiglieri for Don Corleone this is not a stretch) while Michael struggles for legitimacy. This would have also been a "completion of a cycle" for Hagen, who was earlier locked out of the violent side of the family by Michael in II. Now he would have had to take over the reigns of that violent side because the prodigal son wanted out. The true irony is that an outsider (non-Sicilian) would be the only one with the required ruthlessness to carry on the legacy of the family.

Imagine the possibilities!

PPS - I still would take my Dark Tower and LoTR novels before these movies onto my desert island! :p)

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Lew wrote at the top of page 3:

That's true although it's not because there isn't greater power than Sauron or the Ring. It's because well, the same reason that Christians can believe in an Almighty God in the midst of a far from perfect world w/ the Devil running around somewhere (more or less). Now, I'm not trying to evangelize here, so please don't get unduly offended (or have a moderator delete this post ), but Tolkien was not exactly an atheist AFAIK and probably had a closer relationship w/ C.S. Lewis than most of his relatives. The Tolkien mythology spans well beyond what the LotR books can tell you explicitly (even at its great length), but they do offer plenty of hints to give you an idea that the events in those books are a culmination of all that happened before them. It's kinda like reading only the 4 Gospels + Acts in the Bible and skipping most everything else, except you will have to delete the mentions of God in there while not in LotR. And yes, God does exist in Tolkien's mythology. Who do you really think Gandalf, the various wizards, Sauron and the Balrogs are? :wink:

_Man_

 

[nolesrule]

Maiar

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Which are essentially?

_Man_

 

[Kenneth]

Angels (fallen ones to be in Middle Earth) not Gods.

I took a class on JRR Tolkien in college and as I noted in my previous post his books follow certain rules of religious dogma (we spent several lectures specifically on religious dogma so we could understand how it was used in Tolkien's writings).

Lucas' story is the "Hero with a Thousand Faces", a variation of the classic hero myth. Although Lucas used cinematic inspiration from a variety of sources he also was bound by certain rules of the classic myth he was trying to tell (one main element being that the hero's ultimate journey becomes an inner one).

The Godfather is also classic but in more of a Macbeth way (with an absolute power corrupts absolutely message).

Kenneth

 

[Ricardo C]

Man-Fai:

Maiar are a subset of the Ainur.



The Maiar would be the equivalent of the Angels of Christian lore, while the Valar would be Archangels. God does exist in Tolkien's universe, but never enters the world (whether Valinor or Middle-earth), and is never seen by mortals. The closest would be his intervention in the drowning of Numenor.

Kenneth: Only a few Maiar could be describe as "fallen": Sauron, certainly. Saruman. The Balrogs (there were six or so, right?). Alatar and Pallando, if Tolkien's suggestion that they may have abandoned their mission and become the leaders of occultic cults in the East. But Gandalf and the rest of the Wizards were in Middle-earth by direct mandate of the Valar, and Gandalf (and presumably Radagast) eventually returned home, his mission accomplished.

 

[Holadem]

Did he? I always thougth he got lost doing nature photography and was never heard from again...

--
H