quote:

---

You have to admit at least that the lotr are easily better than the new most recent star wars. You guys are only arguing about the originals, right?

---

I think so...But I still like the new SW than I do LOTR.

One good movie!!!! That is it! The first Star Wars is so dated now, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill were all terrible actors(and still are). The movie is redeemed by the prescence of Sir Alec Guiness and Peter Cushing, and the fact that it was something noone had seen the likes of before. I still enjoy the movie, I mean I had Star Wars bedsheets, comics, lunchboxes, action figures, the whole deal when I was a kid, so it will always be special to me, but looking at it critically, the LOTR movies are superior on almost every level. They will also be considered classics and will be remembered and rewatched for many years. Return of the Jedi was a disappointment, even the score is weak compared to the first two films. I have no complaints about Empire, as I think it is the best sequel ever made. The LOTR films were meant to be as one whole film right from the beginning, so of course as stand alone movies there are problems, but as a whole, they are amazing. The gaps between the Star Wars films gave time for Lucas's ego to grow out of control, which led to the inclusion of the ridiculous ewoks in Return, and the disasters that have been the two prequels. Sure I can watch them, but only with a lot of fast forwarding and cringing at shoddy dialogue. If you're not into the fantasy thing in LOTR-fine, but as films they are excellent and were recognized as such by most all of the major critics and awards ceremonies. I can't stand English period dramas, but I'm not going to say that a movie isn't great because I'm bored and can't get into the subject matter. I just can't get into the subject matter! The Lord of the Rings movies were incredibly well done, great movies that attempted to be as faithful as possible to the source material, George Lucas can't even be faithful to his own work. The horrible "updating" he did on the original three movies was apalling. The Sarlac Pit looks awful now, and the extra scene with Jabba pisses me off so much, it ruins the whole sense of disbelief that I had built up of that characters image and persona. Not to even mention the whole singing bit in the Cantina. In conclusion, Star Wars will always be remembered fondly in the public's consciousness, as will the Lord of the Rings, but when viewed critically, the Rings Trilogy was built to last and please its' fan base, whereas Lucas has stained his own legacy by attempting only to please himself.

LOTR was far better, and not just because Tolkien was a better writer than George Lucas. Episodes IV and V were great (V was the best), but it's been all down hill from there. Lucas pandered too much to little kids with the ewoks and other computer generated cartoon charcters. It lacked the intensity of the first two in the series and killed the trilogy. In I and II he even failed to develop the characters enough so that you cared what happend to them. (but that's a different trilogy)

I have to side with LOTR here, and I was old enough to have seen the original Star Wars trilogy in the theatres when they first came out. I have great love for Episodes VI and V (and some love for the too-cutesy VI) but I think that the LOTR trilogy, while long and at times unwieldy, has a better story and better characters.

I share Smehkharon's view that the Lucas legacy was tarnished by the new series of films. I can find nothing redeemable about Episodes I and II. Episode I made me so angry that I refuse to see the others in a theatre. It was just bad, and more tragically, boring and rote. Even the cool scenes (the racing scene, for instance) were just recycled from the other movies.

I would call the original SW trilogy and the LOTR a pretty close race, with LOTR winning by a hair. But considering the whole series, Lucas sinks his ship with the new movies.

Right, I mean, if we are viewing for love of the film, they both present the struggles of man, love of a woman, etc. If we are talking fan-boy lust, then Star Wars is an area expanded, we have so much more over there, all the droids, ships, planets, etc. It definitely will end up being remembered more. The series will never die and is always going to present fun to children, and significant fun to adults. Really though, the Lord of the Rings FILMS were all three masterpieces. For being consistantly good and for showing a future of being consistantly good (The Hobbit, Simirilion) I think Peter is the man. I NEVER cared for Lucas, putting his name on everything and desperately wanting to be known as the creator of space itself. "HEY GUESS WHAT I DID? I MADE THOSE GREAT MOVIES BACK IN THE DAY!!! I'M GOING TO UPDATE THEM AND NOT LET THEM LIVE IN PEACE! BECAUSE THOSE THREE ARE THE ONLY THINGS IVE EVER DONE WELL!!!!"

*huff...huff* sorry, took a lot out of me to express that.

i wasn't born before '80 and i still choose starwars, just because it's simply cooler.

however, the following is LOTR favoring.. look at lucas' job at making a movie at the same time with the same technology (and undoubtedly more money) compared to jackson's job at making LOTR. the new SW suck compared to LOTR. what im saying is looking at jackson's art and lucas' art and comparing them in the same time (yr 2000+) jackson wins.. if jackson had made LOTR when lucas made SW IV-VI in the 80s, jackson's movies would have been better... just a thought

This is sort of a difficult choice for me. I was born in 1977 and really grew up with the Star Wars trilogy. My parents still have a bootlegged copy of A New Hope on Beta! That said, I have to go with LOTR. Jedi absolutely killed it for me. I remember that I didn't even like it as much when I first saw it at age 6. Empire is the crown jewel of all six films in my opinion.
I think a lot of it is there was already such a wealth of material on which to draw on for LOTR. Lucas created a new new world with not so new themes. I respect him for the worlds he created. Even though Jackson created nothing new, he did successfully bring to life one of the most dense trilogies ever written.
I still watch Star Wars often, and I still have to choose LOTR.

LOTR is obviously better than SW. If you hear the different songs that have the same kind of relationship in some ways. (They both have the Latin singers)
For example: Star Wars: Duel of the Fates, Anakin's Dark Deeds, LOTR: A knife in the dark, The Crack of Doom, etc. And especially the way that they use their brass instruments is much more majestic and breathtaking to hear than Star Wars.

LOTR itself is a much more emotional film than Star Wars, where in Star Wars, the only emotional scenes are; the death of Master Qui-Gon Jinn and the scene where Anakin burns on Mustafar. LOTR has much more emotional scenes: when Gandalf falls into the darkness of Moria, The Death of Boromir in Fellowship, Haldir the Elf of Lorien in Two Towers, and Theoden, King of Rohan in Return of the King. Therefore, LOTR truly shows the meaning of sacrificing things for the greater good of the future and most importantly, for peace, when Star Wars is only about people struggling with their personal feelings and betrayal, while LOTR is about; sacrifice, friendship and loyalty, sorrow and love.

The music of both Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings themselves develop very differently. While Star Wars concentrates on the duels and battles, LOTR has music concentrated on different people of middle earth, for example; Ancient Dwarvish, Elvish and the world of Men- Rohan and Gondor. These songs all have different themes, giving more depth, devotion and authenticity.
The languages spoken by both SW and LOTR characters are entirely different to each other; Star Wars has many alien languages which are quite fascinating at first, but gets extremely annoying later (eg: Tusken Raiders, Rodians, Duros) LOTR: however, has a very lovely style of languages, with the purity and beauty of the Elvish tongue, the proud and confident Dwarves, the gruesome and harsh tongues of the Orcs, and of course the English language that we all know and speak everyday.

Whilst Star Wars tracks (songs) are more focused on delivering an understanding of large armies, huge battlefields and sometimes emotional times, LOTR focuses on more areas; The titanic struggles of the good folk of Middle Earth against the might of evil, loyalty, friendship, blissful harmonies, MUCH MORE better love songs (just listen to Enya-Aniron compared to Across the Stars- the Love theme of Anakin and Obi-Wan) Love themes have to be gentle, calm and full of heart, not go to enormous high pitches.

Therefore, i believe i have clearly made my case that Lord of the Rings is a far more compelling story than Star Wars.

(Also, Lord of the Rings IS the 2nd most purchased book after the bible in the entire world)

LOTR is so far the better of the two. I was awfully disappointed at the Duel between Vader and Ben Kenobi in episode IV, cos they only moved a few inches to strike every 2 seconds. LOTR provides constant movement in combat, massive hordes of orcs against a small army of men with nothing but weapons, hope and the will to defend their lands.

Although the duels in the recent star wars are... Impressive... but they lack the finess, style and elegance in combat, and are more of a "hack quick or you're the first to die" situation. LOTR shows people as small as hobbits merry and pippin running after Aragorn first in Return of the King against overwhelming foes, and after they started running, the entire army started to gain heart and run into combat against possibly their doom.
And they also have to face trolls about 7 times their size, and they "CANT USE THE FORCE!", and that shows how brave they are for ordinary people (except for gandalf, of course)

quote:

Originally posted by iluv2viddyfilms:
Star Wars is a million times better than Lord of the Rings, but when it comes to trilogies neither one I don't think could be considered the best.

Star Wars IS NOT a million times better than LOTR. If you HAVE TO SAY 1000000, say it the other way around. I mean everyone except two people in this discussion went with LOTR. What does that say to you, man? Got any ideas? .... I thought not!

I agree with JL. For me, its LotR all the way. Ive seen both series, but Star Wars is less appealing because Lucas, in my opinion, plagarized Tolkien. There are so many plot parallels that Lucas had to have stolen some ideas from Tolkien. Just compare it, Gandalf fights the Balrog with glowing swords and Obi-Wan fighting Darth Vader with lightsabers.

Also, I consider the work poured into each. Tolkien wrote LotR while attempting to match every single detail with "The Hobbit". He also spent time working on the many languages, i.e Sindarin, Quenya, Black Speech, Rohhiric, Dwarven, Numenorean, etc. To top it all off, you should look at the Silmarillion, the Unfinished Tales, and The History of Middle Earth series (All published post humorously by his son Christopher) to be able to grasp the rich mythology made by Tolkien. Theen look at Star Wars. There are so many books, perhaps in the thousands, that you cant tell what is what. There are so many loose ends left that half of the books conflict with the other half.

quote:

Originally posted by The Lord Of The Valar:
...published post humorously...

Indeed.

Now Playing: "Just About the Same" The Millenium Begin

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by The Lord Of The Valar:
...published post humorously...

Indeed.

Lmao. I needed a little "humor" in my day. Thanks.

When I was watching star wars again on tv, especially empire strikes back the whole story progression seems a little random and incohesive, I guess that's just me. The characters are also a little cheesy at times, especially the interaction between solo and leia, although maybe the same is true at times in LOTR.

While I do love the original Star Wars trilogy (why all the hate for the Return of the Jedi?), I must say that overall the Lord of the Rings trilogy was better acted, better directed, and just more well-made overall. The 3rd one almost ruined it for me (high expectations for sequels) until I saw the extended edition (LotR 1 and 2 were both better than the 3rd one). However, Star Wars is more of a film for fun...Lord of the Rings is a more serious movie, and usually I like this better. In addition to the afore-mentioned better overall quality.

It has to be Lord of the Rings for me. Star Wars was good but it turned from a well written, well played movie into three hours of computer graphics. Lord of the Rings was, in my opinion, epic! The huge battles, the wizard fights, the Mines of Moria, Minas Tirith the list goes on. It may not have been anything like the book but who cares? It was a very impressive trilogy.

lotr is better films i think. lotr never faltered, whereas cmon, the new triology. lotr had no plot holes, and more tense situations, though it is a close one. episodes 1 and 2 and even 3 a little just had to fuck this argument for star wars. lotr by a hair

jl i fricken love you.

quote:

Originally posted by Smenkharon:
The gaps between the Star Wars films gave time for Lucas's ego to grow out of control, which led to the inclusion of the ridiculous ewoks in Return, and the disasters that have been the two prequels...The Lord of the Rings movies were incredibly well done, great movies that attempted to be as faithful as possible to the source material, George Lucas can't even be faithful to his own work. The horrible "updating" he did on the original three movies was apalling. The Sarlac Pit looks awful now, and the extra scene with Jabba pisses me off so much, it ruins the whole sense of disbelief that I had built up of that characters image and persona. Not to even mention the whole singing bit in the Cantina.

Geez. A little harsh, huh? First off, the Ewoks were originally supposed to be Wookies but, Lucas wanted the Empire to fight low-tech primatives, & seeing as how Chewie repairs the Falcon & put threepio back together, it's obvious Wookies are technologically advanced. So, he made up a smaller version & called them Ewoks. As far as the "disasters" that are the 2 (now 3) prequels...It's a backstory for TRUE fans that care. They change nothing at all about the last 3 episodes, they enhance them, if anything. You learn more about the Republic & how a vicious villian like Palpatine destroyed it. I actually like Palpatine MORE because of the prequels. They showed him as a devious, evil man who played both sides of a war to get what he wanted. Brilliant!
As far as "updating" his originals, he did that so all six movies could be watched in line without suddenly dropping to cheap effects after Episode 3. Adding the Jabba scene in Episode 4 let you understand why Han actually thought he could strike a deal with Jabba in Episode 6. By the way, I do hate he makes Greedo take the first shot, however, I also understand why he did that, too. He didn't want Han to seem so cold-hearted. I also dislike the extended Wampa scene in 5. I think if you can't make the Wampa look good when you show the full body, don't show it at all. I do agree with you on the Sarlacc Pit as well. The beak does suck. But, why let these few things sour you on the rest?
Peter Jackson has no reason to redo The Lord of the Rings because all of the tools were there. They weren't for Lucas & he did create the company that made all of this possible! Even Jackson gives Lucas the props he deserves for starting the special effects revolution! He didn't do this just to please himself, he did it for people like me. There are times I'll be watching a great movie & then come upon an effect where I would think, "They could do that so much better today." I'm glad I don't have to think that about Star Wars.
As for the original question: Which is better?
I'd have to shoot for "Star Wars". It is consistant & sticks with its characters from the page to the screen. "The Lord of the Rings" changed too much from the books. Don't get me wrong, I loved the movies. I went & seen everone of them in the theater & was there at midnight to buy each one on DVD. I also bought the extended editions as well. It's just that they made Frodo so wimpy. In the book he was ALOT stronger than he was in the movie. He didn't need Sam as much as they made him in the movie. It was Jackson, not Lucas, who strayed from the source material. Arwen called forth the water horses in Fellowship? No, it was Elrond who called up the water & Gandalf who added the horses. Hell, at one point, he was going to have Arwen, the elf princess, fight at Helm's Deep! Can you imagine? That is nowhere near the "source material" you hold so precious. The only reason he didn't do that, 'cus it was filmed, was because of the outcry from fans saying, "NO!". He also filmed Aragorn fighting Sauron at the end of Return! Thank God he changed his mind on that one! Yeah, REAL FAITHFUL.
By the way, one of you mentioned that watching
"Star Wars" "...turned from a well written, well played movie into three hours of computer graphics." Yeah, um, the huge battles, the Mines of Moria, Minas Tirith, even Gollum? Done in a computer. I also don't understand how some believe there are loop holes & inconsistancies in the "Star Wars" movies. I can answer ANY questions you may have & I've ONLY seen the movies. WE WOULD NEVER HAVE HAD "THE LORD OF THE RINGS" IF IT WASN'T FOR "STAR WARS"!
'Nuff said!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Monkey_Boy,

To me, there's no debate. Star Wars all the way. LOTR is just a bit too "17-sided" die for me. I know. I know. I know. Tolkien wrote them decades before Dungeons & Dragons, but the entire LOTR trilogy felt like the most self-serious dungeon master of all time had been given millions to make his game real. I was alternately bored and giggly throughout the LOTR trilogy.

And all those Oscars for Return Of The King? Oy. I've never thought that the Star Wars films were the kind that should have won Best Picture - I'm one of the few Star Wars fans who actually thinks Woody Allen's Annie Hall deserved the 1977 Best Picture Oscar - but the Oscars that year were just out of control.

With the whole canonization of the LOTR trilogy as some great work of art instead of just a subjectively entertaining fantasy piece that appeals to certain teenage-male-oriented fascinations, I had to just laugh at the pretentiousness of it all.