# Lord of the Rings vs Star Wars



## Kane (Jul 23, 2005)

[font=Verdana,Arial]Both are one of the greatest modern epics IMO. One takes place in the past (Lord of the Rings) while one takes place in the future (Star Wars). Both take place in a fantasy world/universe. One gained fame more in its books while other gained fame in its movies (both are sucessful in books and movies). Both have books made outside the timeline of the movies discussing the past and a little about the future.

 There are also morals to be learned in both movies, Lord of the Rings having a bit more conservative morals while Star Wars has a bit more liberal morals to learn. Whether we agree with some of these morals or not it still does not take away from their glory.

 Which of these two masterpiece modern epics do you like more and why? I think I like them about the same, hard to choose one over the other.
[/font]


----------



## dubljay (Jul 23, 2005)

Star Wars by far.  I fell asleep in the first 10 minutes of the first Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 23, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> [font=Verdana,Arial] while one takes place in the future (Star Wars).
> [/font]


 *A Long time ago*, in a galaxy far far away....


----------



## dubljay (Jul 23, 2005)

LOL I was just gonna ignore that one


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 23, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> *A Long time ago*, in a galaxy far far away....




That was my thought also. 

Both are stories of coming of age, and of the people of non=consequence making an actual difference.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 23, 2005)

A bit more timely ... Harry Potter. Same Story - different characters.

But, all things being equal, Lucas and Rowling can't hold a candle to Tolkien.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jul 23, 2005)

I loved the original Star Wars trilogy, but I thought the last 3 say for phantom menace stunk.

Id probably go with LOTR, but I really didnt like the return of the king, as I thought it drifted somewhat from the book itself. So, Star Wars Original Trilogy it is, but nevertheless LOTR was great too. The funny thing about Star Wars though, not to drift away too much is that that classic trilogy will be one of those rare movies that will be passed on from generation to generation. We will all be grand dads/moms and our grandkids will probably be watching them with the same type of amazement we did.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 23, 2005)

Star Wars.
 The best thing about LOTR was my friends laughing at me when I was trying to slit my wrists with a cheese grater at the most moronic endings of the 3rd movie.
 And yes,I did say "endingS". That movie could have ended on SO many different levels,but it just had to drag on and on and on AND ON....
 where's that damn cheese grater.....
 But honestly,I saw both for what they actually are....movies for entertainment! Nothing else.
  Oh yea,1st trilogy btw, of Star Wars.
 The second trilogy.....
 Bite a rock.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 23, 2005)

Are we comparing movies or stories? LOTH (the books) is best by far IMO. I have "issues" with the artistic license the script writers took in the movie version.


----------



## Kane (Jul 23, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> *A Long time ago*, in a galaxy far far away....


  Well ya know Lord of the Rings might take place in the future too then. But LOTR represents the past while Star Wars the future.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Are we comparing movies or stories? LOTH (the books) is best by far IMO. I have "issues" with the artistic license the script writers took in the movie version.


  Overall best and/or favorite. Movies, books, story, ect.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 23, 2005)

LotR wins hands down when the books are used. Tolkein could actually write, Lucas cannot. (Shame Jackson didn't recognize this.)


----------



## arnisador (Jul 23, 2005)

I feel I should say the LOTR movies are better...but, to be honest, the SW stuff drwas me in more, despite the fact that it's more shlocky.

Adding the books in does indeed change things. The LOTR stuff is literature.


----------



## Drifter (Aug 1, 2005)

Both follow the general guidelines of The Hero With a Thousand Faces, no? I prefer LOTR, myself, and the books to the movies. It's a lot deeper than the movies ever go.


----------



## Kamaria Annina (Aug 1, 2005)

Definitely Star Wars.  

 LOTR is good, only I wish they didn't even make the movie sadly, definitely wasn't what Tolkein wanted, Peter Jackson should have stayed to the author's wishes.  

 What are they going to do when George Lucas dies?  Remake the original triology with a a new cast ?    I hope not.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 1, 2005)

Kamaria Annina said:
			
		

> Definitely Star Wars.
> 
> LOTR is good, only I wish they didn't even make the movie sadly, definitely wasn't what Tolkein wanted, Peter Jackson should have stayed to the author's wishes.
> 
> What are they going to do when George Lucas dies?  Remake the original triology with a a new cast ?    I hope not.


I hope they keep the original trilogy and re-make the new trilogy. If anything at least redux "The Phantom Menace" for pete's sake! If they casted Hayden Christensen in that; showing him to be a moody teenager being beaten and abused by Watto (stereotypical slave owner), then it would've given weight to his surly attitude in "Attack Of The Clones" and also would've made the potential romance between Anakin and Padme" much more believable. 
It would've also made the hero of the Pod-race that much more believable too.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 2, 2005)

Drifter said:
			
		

> Both follow the general guidelines of The Hero With a Thousand Faces, no?


I don't think Tolkien was really trying to follow that unlike Lucas who was deliberately trying to flowchart that book. Tolkien's main ambition was to create a flat earth mythos for England. So of course that heroic jouney stuff will seep in since that's what he was modeling it after, but that's not the same thing as following what's become a screenwriting textbook.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 2, 2005)

Not to mention that Tolkien pre-dates "Hero" by a good what 10-20 years or more?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Not to mention that Tolkien pre-dates "Hero" by a good what 10-20 years or more?




I was curious about the date of writing and publish on the "HERO". 

It is hard to say someone tried to follow someones' guideline if the guideline was written after, it almost looks like the Guideline was written from that story, as how to tell a classic epic. But, Lord of the Ring, in the US did not become popular until Graffitti in the NY subways had quotes of "Frodo Lives", "BilBo" etc, ..., . 

Does some have the link to when the hero guide was written and where it was written?


----------



## Aikikitty (Aug 2, 2005)

Both are good.  Personally, I really love LOTRs and while I enjoy Star Wars, I get bored with it.  Maybe it's because I grew up with fantasy and love elves, magic, dragons, etc. and not sci-fi and the whole space thing.  

Movie-wise--I definitly love LOTRs much better than Star Wars--the plot, the characters, music, world, etc.  To me, Peter Jackson picked exactly the right actors to play the right parts.  However, some of the actors that George Lucas chose aren't convincing or good actors (others are), and that makes a big difference in pulling me into the movie.  

I just really love LOTRs, but I do enjoy lightsabers and the big lightsaber battles. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 :jedi1: 

Robyn  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 :jediduel:


----------



## swiftpete (Aug 2, 2005)

I think LOTR is a really fantastic trilogy, lot of homoerotic style looks and moments between the hobbits though, one or the other is also crying most of the time which got a little annoying..! But still thought they were fantastic. 

I just enjoyed star wars more, I do agree that episode 1 is annoying in places, obviously Jar Jar binks is incredibly irritating and that does let the film down a bit. But the pod race is pretty cool, very impressed the first time i saw that in the cinema, the best bit of course is the fight scene between obiwan and anakin against darth maul of course. One of the best fight scenes ever!
Episode 3 is really good, I can't understand how it gets so slated, it is dark and the fight scenes are fantastic. Seeing Vader born was very cool as well, in my opinion anyway. Well I'm not going to dissect each film, I just like the star wars films, the whole idea of the jedi is just a fantastic idea and having them use light sabres instead of guns was just an inspired idea..!
 :jedi1:


----------



## arnisador (Aug 2, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> It is hard to say someone tried to follow someones' guideline if the guideline was written after


 But I think the point of Joseph Campbell's book is that people follow the storyline subconsciously. They don't even recognize that they're following a style that goes back to Homer. He recognized that people had been doing this for centuries.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 2, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings



> The Lord of the Rings is an epic fantasy story by J. R. R. Tolkien, a sequel to his earlier work, The Hobbit. It was published in three volumes from 1954 to 1955.



http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...with+a+thousand+faces"+written&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


> The book went through many revisions between the first draft in 1944 and its publicationby the Bollingen Foundation in 1949.



So I was mistaken. They were approximately being written in the same time period, however Tolkien had been putting together the ground work for the books as far back as WWI. The LOTR is based in Tolkiens interest in linguistics and the early European myths that the languages were written in. I doubt Campbells work came out soon enough or was popular enough to be an influence on JRR.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks Tom,

I know they were published after they were written. Does anyone know from if they were written and not published for a while?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 2, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> But I think the point of Joseph Campbell's book is that people follow the storyline subconsciously. They don't even recognize that they're following a style that goes back to Homer. He recognized that people had been doing this for centuries.




Yes, I understand that point, and a guideline or format for a good story is a good story. I have seen multiple things developed my multiple people with no contact, maybe some similiar inputs, such as education or access to technology, but multiple people can come up with the same idea, independantly of others. 

I just have a problem making real general sweeping statements that apply to everything with out any caveats.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 2, 2005)

Yes, I imagine that Campbell's claims could easily be overbroad. (I haven't read his book.) And convergent evolution happens in technology and in writing, just like in biology! But I think guideline is probably not a strong enough word--my understanding is that Campbell's claim is that there's a combination of Jungian archetype(s) and also that we don't realize how constrained we are to write stories that are similar to other stories we've read.

 It's been said that every calculus text ever written has been either a copy of Euler or a copy of a copy of Euler. We find it hard to see new ways of doing it after seeing his way. So, I think that instead of viewing The Hero storyline as a guideline, we're meant to see it as a distillation of what he saw writer after writer after writer doing. It was description, not proscription.

 As I write this I wonder if I'm taking 'guideline' as you meant it! I see it as a proscriptive term.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 2, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Thanks Tom,
> 
> I know they were published after they were written. Does anyone know from if they were written and not published for a while?


Well i do know that the LOTR's genesis was in a bunch of notebooks compiled by JRR going back to the 20's (or even earlier im guestimating). They were basically a group of epic poems based on a Finnish epic called the Kelekaveda (sp?). This was the base mythology for the Silmarillian and gave birth to the LOTR. Even though I believe the Silmarillian was published after the LOTR, all the work was already in existance as notebooks.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 2, 2005)

I think that's right...the Silmarillion was what he started with, even though it was published posthumously. He had been working on it for a long time, and was driven in large measure by his interests in linguistics. (A lot of effort went into making the languages authentic.) The other books were created later, and teh Silmarillion was never truly finished.

His son recently published heavily annotated versions of the books--it's interesting to read the notes. He footnotes places where an original line has been chanegd and gives it, translates things not translated in the text, lists original choices for names, and so on. I've only flipped through them but would enjoy reading them some day.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well i do know that the LOTR's genesis was in a bunch of notebooks compiled by JRR going back to the 20's (or even earlier im guestimating). They were basically a group of epic poems based on a Finnish epic called the Kelekaveda (sp?). This was the base mythology for the Silmarillian and gave birth to the LOTR. Even though I believe the Silmarillian was published after the LOTR, all the work was already in existance as notebooks.




Yes that is what my guestimate also, and with the Silmarillian, where he even created the language of the elves. I also nicked named the Silmarillian the book of names . This book also has its classic heros and heroines.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 2, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Yes, I imagine that Campbell's claims could easily be overbroad. (I haven't read his book.) And convergent evolution happens in technology and in writing, just like in biology! But I think guideline is probably not a strong enough word--my understanding is that Campbell's claim is that there's a combination of Jungian archetype(s) and also that we don't realize how constrained we are to write stories that are similar to other stories we've read.
> 
> It's been said that every calculus text ever written has been either a copy of Euler or a copy of a copy of Euler. We find it hard to see new ways of doing it after seeing his way. So, I think that instead of viewing The Hero storyline as a guideline, we're meant to see it as a distillation of what he saw writer after writer after writer doing. It was description, not proscription.
> 
> As I write this I wonder if I'm taking 'guideline' as you meant it! I see it as a proscriptive term.




Well I have thought about writting and have created some story lines, to have people tell me it sounds just like (* insert series here *). I never really did follow up after this happened numerous times, and I had not read the series in question, I was just thinking and poutting down thoughts. 

So, I agree that my experiences with other books, may have given me a formula, that I was unconsciously following, so the proscription is a term I would also use, as it is a formula. 

As to Calculus books, been a while since I read one, but some were easier than others, based upon examples, and who it was presented. Yet again the big difference could have been the instructors,  so I guess I have to pass on that one, until I review my books . Yes I still have them and they are in reach if I were to need one.


----------



## hemi (Aug 2, 2005)

Well I was going to stay out of this thread but I feel compelled to respond since Star Wars seems to be loosing in the poles. Let me start by making note that I like LOTRs They were good movies with good imagination and great special effects. The soundtracks for LOTRs were top notch but done in Dolby Digital I prefer THX or DTS but still sounded good on my system. 



Now on to Star Wars, I remember going to the theater way back when the original Star Wars came out (my first movie to see in a theater) when the movie started the sound was UNBELIEVABLE. The story yes a little cheesy but what George Lucas did was way ahead of his time. I watched a special on the Discovery channel that showed the actors talking about the making of the movie and how they were afraid that this would be a flop. They had no idea how good the special affects and sound format for this move would turn out until they saw it on the big screen for them self. Even the actors were blown away. 



Now I see a lot of talk of Tolkeins ability to write Im not looking to take that away but lets talk about the fact that George Lucas set the bar for movie theater sound as we know it. He would not show his movies in a theater unless the sound system met his strict requirements. His team of engineers created THX or Thomas Holms Experiment. Now any of the better receivers on the market today some 20 something years later still display the THX logo to show that they meet the requirements set fourth by Lucas Films LTD.


----------

