Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
And yet, somehow I doubt that a Hollywood committee that would cast Brad Pitt as Achilles would be capable of bringing epic scope and pathos to the filming of a battle scene.Truth Seeker said:
<shrugs> Call me a cynic.
Lord of the Rings Trilogy vs. Classic Star Wars Trilogy
- Thread starter Desdichado
- Start date
<shrugs> Call me a cynic.
Henry
Autoexreginated
I still prefer Star Wars, just slightly, EVER so slightly, over LOTR. The reason is that SW has that mix of pain, humor, and triumph that LOTR has, but LOTR doesn't get it quite right. LOTR is a great series of three films, and the only movie that came close to capturing D&D for me, but SW still has that edge of adventure, mystery, excitement, and fun that still makes it slightly more watchable.
THAT, and the trilogy is a full three hours shorter, making my butt hurt less when watching it.
I love what PJ has done, but good Lord, three hours is too darned long without a break!
THAT, and the trilogy is a full three hours shorter, making my butt hurt less when watching it.
I love what PJ has done, but good Lord, three hours is too darned long without a break!
Desdichado
Hero
I'm already both very excited and yet strangely dreading starting up a custom next Christmas break -- of trying to do a Lord of the Rings all three Extended Edition DVD marathon. With Fellowship EE clocking in at 3.5 hours, Towers EE clocking in at 3.75 hours and King theatrical clocking in at 3.3 hours with a rumored more than an hour of cut material, we're potentially talking nearly twelve hours straight.Henry said:THAT, and the trilogy is a full three hours shorter, making my butt hurt less when watching it.
Pants
First Post
My arse is already dreading it...Joshua Dyal said:I'm already both very excited and yet strangely dreading starting up a custom next Christmas break -- of trying to do a Lord of the Rings all three Extended Edition DVD marathon. With Fellowship EE clocking in at 3.5 hours, Towers EE clocking in at 3.75 hours and King theatrical clocking in at 3.3 hours with a rumored more than an hour of cut material, we're potentially talking nearly twelve hours straight.
Ankh-Morpork Guard
First Post
...but my mind is loving it.Pants said:
Although I voted (for LotR), I don't think that this is really a fair poll. I think someone has already brought some of the points I getting ready to make up already... But, I want to flap my gums.
SW is very loosely an "original story" in the sense that it was written to be a movie. LotR, on the other hand, is an adaptation of a literary work that (from what I've heard) was never intended to be adapted into film.
SW is also extremely uneven as a trilogy. Although I will always love this material, I'm not a slave to nostalgia. I am well aware of the massive adjustments in quality of storytelling (I'm not concerned about the fx) that SW experiences. We go from a very clear "fairy-tale" type of presentation in ANH to a rather brooding drama that has fairly consistent characterization to something that falls apart as the film progresses. Part of this stems from inconsistent directing and writing. Lucas is a great conceptualist, but not the best director nor the best writer. That's why TESB is typically considered the best of the original three... he didn't have his hands all over the story. RotJ is horribly derivative because Lucas reinvolved himself in the process and robbed people of what should have been a truly spectacular conclusion to the story. I can say that the ending of the SW trilogy did not evoke the same emotional response as the end of LotRs... and I'm far less emotional now as a 30 year old man than I was when I was 9.
But, this gets back to the nature of comparing these two films. Jackson had the unenviable responsibility to take an established text revered by legions of (sometimes rabid and blindly devoted) fans and adapt it for film. He could make changes... but only so long as he adhered to the general spirit of the source material. He couldn't really change all that much (and considering the relatively minor changes and the almost infantile tantrums some had over them, it's a good thing he didn't do more). Jackson was working with a prepackaged product. Lucas changed stuff as time went along because what he really had was an outline, not a full-fledged story (and I'm convinced that as time progressed, he adjusted stuff in order to grow his young fan-base and mass market appeal. Afterall, ewoks will sell a lot more toys that wookies).
Thus, SW is unbalanced (and this lack of equilibrium has become even more apparent with the release of the prequels) as a trilogy while LotRs is not. LotRs is more successful as a movie trilogy. But, in making this assessment, one must take into account the foundational differences between the two.
That said, I love both trilogies. Unlike other SW fans, I'm willing to recognize the gross flaws in the movies... but I still enjoy them because they had an impact on many of the things I love today. And I love LotRs... even in spite of not being fond of some adjustments and sacrifices that had to be made for the screen. These are two series that deserve to be respected and revered for their impact not just on speculative fiction on the silver screen, but for their relavance and positive influence (aside from some marketing elements) to popular culture.
SW is very loosely an "original story" in the sense that it was written to be a movie. LotR, on the other hand, is an adaptation of a literary work that (from what I've heard) was never intended to be adapted into film.
SW is also extremely uneven as a trilogy. Although I will always love this material, I'm not a slave to nostalgia. I am well aware of the massive adjustments in quality of storytelling (I'm not concerned about the fx) that SW experiences. We go from a very clear "fairy-tale" type of presentation in ANH to a rather brooding drama that has fairly consistent characterization to something that falls apart as the film progresses. Part of this stems from inconsistent directing and writing. Lucas is a great conceptualist, but not the best director nor the best writer. That's why TESB is typically considered the best of the original three... he didn't have his hands all over the story. RotJ is horribly derivative because Lucas reinvolved himself in the process and robbed people of what should have been a truly spectacular conclusion to the story. I can say that the ending of the SW trilogy did not evoke the same emotional response as the end of LotRs... and I'm far less emotional now as a 30 year old man than I was when I was 9.
But, this gets back to the nature of comparing these two films. Jackson had the unenviable responsibility to take an established text revered by legions of (sometimes rabid and blindly devoted) fans and adapt it for film. He could make changes... but only so long as he adhered to the general spirit of the source material. He couldn't really change all that much (and considering the relatively minor changes and the almost infantile tantrums some had over them, it's a good thing he didn't do more). Jackson was working with a prepackaged product. Lucas changed stuff as time went along because what he really had was an outline, not a full-fledged story (and I'm convinced that as time progressed, he adjusted stuff in order to grow his young fan-base and mass market appeal. Afterall, ewoks will sell a lot more toys that wookies).
Thus, SW is unbalanced (and this lack of equilibrium has become even more apparent with the release of the prequels) as a trilogy while LotRs is not. LotRs is more successful as a movie trilogy. But, in making this assessment, one must take into account the foundational differences between the two.
That said, I love both trilogies. Unlike other SW fans, I'm willing to recognize the gross flaws in the movies... but I still enjoy them because they had an impact on many of the things I love today. And I love LotRs... even in spite of not being fond of some adjustments and sacrifices that had to be made for the screen. These are two series that deserve to be respected and revered for their impact not just on speculative fiction on the silver screen, but for their relavance and positive influence (aside from some marketing elements) to popular culture.
Paul_Klein
Explorer
I don't think this poll is fair to Star Wars, considering RotK *just* came out, and we're all so hyped and excited about it (myself included).
Ask this again in 5 years (well after the DVD's for all 6 SWs and all 3 EE LotRs have been out), and the disparity between the two sagas will be much smaller.
That said, for me, Star Wars. When taken as a whole (all 6 movies), there's so much more story to Star Wars than there is to Lord of the Rings.
Ask this again in 5 years (well after the DVD's for all 6 SWs and all 3 EE LotRs have been out), and the disparity between the two sagas will be much smaller.
That said, for me, Star Wars. When taken as a whole (all 6 movies), there's so much more story to Star Wars than there is to Lord of the Rings.
Star Wars was *it* for years. My favourite. But as good as it was, it's looking awfully pale compared to Peter Jackson's work.
Lord of the Rings, hands down.
The latest two Star Wars films have taken the bloom off the rose for me. Lucas' attitude did the rest of the damage.
Banshee
Lord of the Rings, hands down.
The latest two Star Wars films have taken the bloom off the rose for me. Lucas' attitude did the rest of the damage.
Banshee
Greyhawk_DM
First Post
diaglo said:
Most books are better than their movie conversions.
Similar Threads
- Guest 85555
- *Geek Talk & Media