re: Lord of the Rings>>>>Star Wars

it was needed IMO

quote:

---

Different genres

---

How about--both excellent and entertaining and I can like them both (and do).

Then we might as well give Jaws the credit for every blockbuster film. Of course Star Wars has something to do with it. Star Wars has something to do with almost every blockbuster since it's release.

quote:

---

Then we might as well give Jaws the credit for every blockbuster film. Of course Star Wars has something to do with it. Star Wars has something to do with almost every blockbuster since it's release.

---

Star Wars had a lot more to do with LOTR than that.

We're not talking about a single movie, or even some moderately related movies, we're talking about a successful trilogy in the escapist/fantasy action adventure vein. Granted, Star Wars was fine as standalone, but ESB was all-in for the next film; cliffhanger ending, etc. And you had to wait 3 years to find out what happened to Han.

They didn't make film serials like that. Most films were standalones, others were sequels that were self-contained. Studios weren't investing in multi-film franchises with the same cast, unless it was James Bond, and even then the stories didn't really rely on each other, they complemented each other and the cast might change.

Star Wars established a milestone, and showed that it COULD be done, if you did it right. The biggest problem you then face is finding a suitable story in a suitable genre. LOTR was the obvious choice, well respected and known, solid storyline, and long considered too big for just a single movie (most often expected to be made as a pair, but Jackson squeezed the studio until they got a trilogy approved).

It's different now, as most major films are being made with one eye on possible sequels.

quote:

---

Technically speaking Arwen and Aragorn are related so number one is false.

---

+1000 For reading The Silmarillion! But there are so far removed you really cant count it.

LOTR isn't even the best movie/series in its own genre. Game of Thrones is way better.

quote:

---

And you had to wait 3 years to find out they ruined Han.

---

FIFY

I was going to make a clerks 2 reference in how star wars is the obvious better trilogy of the two.

Then I noticed it was a thread from 2015 and already had them all covered

Star wars > lord of the rings

quote:

---

Return of the Jedi is clearly an inferior film to Return of the King. Jedi was a clear drop-off in quality. King was just great and won Best fricking Picture.

---

Return of the King was not the best film of that trilogy, regardless of awards; Fellowship was.

ROTK had potential, but when they chose to go TOTALLY against the books and have Aragorn use the Dead at Minas Tirith, that cheapened the film. The effects themselves were not impressive (WETA had trouble with dead stuff, as the ghosts in the Dead Marshes also looked bad).
Also, it was a bit of a slap in the face to the books, and the readers who appreciated them:
a point was made in the books about how potent a leader Aragorn was, and how he was beyond Sauron's reckoning or understanding. Aragorn, IF HE BEHAVED AS SAURON WOULD, would have commanded the Dead onto the field of battle, and would have been a terrible foe to face, but instead, he has a nobility and light about him that elevated him above such actions.
Jackson ignored that completely.

Of course, the further into LOTR Jackson got, the more he turned away from the books, which is one of my only criticisms of the trilogy.
He flipped Gandalf and Theoden's opinions in The Two Towers- Gandalf wanted them to go to the fortress, Theoden wanted open battle on the fields.
Faramir immediately knew to release Frodo, he NEVER wanted his father Denethor to have access to the Ring. Like the Hobbits said, "we shouldn't even be here".
Denethor was never a sniveling or weak figure, he was noble, proud and strong, but held no hope of victory.

These sound like little nitpicks, but they completely alter the characters. That bumps the movies down a peg for me, after Fellowship was almost perfect.

quote:

---

Ok, now give me a reason why Jedi was better?

---

I can't

my take is that:
LOTR is the better acted series. Despite more advanced tech, I put the two on equal footing for effects and visuals. Both had very impressive visuals at points, both have some stumbles there too (lightsaber fights with no fencing on display, ghosts that look straight out of a Scooby Doo episode).

Star Wars OT gets a bump from being the first "been there, done that".

Star Wars (I refuse to call it A New Hope or Ep 4 )
slight win over Fellowship, since it is the only standalone film of the bunch, and it was great fun. Fellowship is brilliant, but it leaves you hanging by necessity; and Star Wars is Lucas, while Fellowship is Jackson as written by Tolkien.

Empire by a comfortable margin over Two Towers; SW best overall film vs LOTR's weakest. I didn't care for the way Gimli devolved into simple comic relief, I thought the Wargs were just ugly, and absolutely didn't inspire any wolf thoughts. I thought using the Elves at Helm's Deep was pointless, all that did was remove their aura of invincibility (as a book reader, I understood that the Elves of Lorien were actually defending their homeland against Mirkwood, and winning). And like I said, bad animation overlay for the ghosts.

Return of the King beats up on Return of the Jedi, as the Ewoks, the musical at Jabba's palace, and every character from Empire somehow becoming a general of the rebellion (with the title emphasized when they are announced: GENERAL Calrission, GENERAL Solo, etc) all cringe-worthy.

So I'd say SW OT takes it 2 of 3, if you compare films that way.

And of course, like someone else said earlier, it's ok to like both!