duder Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 LotR is a far, far more accomplished film than any of the star wars films. Better direction, acting, scripts, cinematography. I think Star Wars has finally been toppled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 I'm no geek, but let me say a few things: I don't think it has broken any money-grossing records yet. If it has, well I'm just dumb. Star Wars films were also made 30 years ago, too, and they were one of the highest-grossing films ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted January 2, 2002 Author Share Posted January 2, 2002 Duder cares little for money.....I'm talking about the quality and enjoyment of the film!!! Im only kidding when I say Geeks.....apologies if offense caused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 No, it hasn't. The movie was hard to follow, IMO, having never read the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted January 2, 2002 Author Share Posted January 2, 2002 ahh I had read the books, but I am suprised you found the narrative challenging! It's very linear. What didn't you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 In book form LotR might have toppled SW ... In Movie form it simply can't ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted January 2, 2002 Author Share Posted January 2, 2002 I simply dont agree......unless you give me reasons why! I think it is far the better film, depth, issues, et all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 Originally posted by Young David in the 'My LOTR review' Thread Well then ... I'll have my say too. Tolkiens book, The Lord of the Rings, is a book of Myth. It goes very deep. PJ's movie adaption was an action movie, not even a very good translation. Oh, I liked to see Middle- Earth. Hobbiton was nice, Bree felt just as in the book. Other places and characters were great to see. The mines of Moria section was way cool, but ... PJ's adaption missed a lot. We were never introduced to Bill (we've seen a goodbye), we never saw how the Fellowship got it's grey robes. Also the movie went too quick ... for example: There are 27 between Bilbo's goodbye party and when Gandalf tells Frodo of the rings of power. Almost half a year later Frodo leaves Hobbiton. The trip from Hobbiton to Bree takes a couple of days. In those time they visit Buckland, Tom Bombadil and the Borrow-downs. And then the whole Saruman thing. Saruman did not serve Sauron. Saruman wished the One Ring for himself. It was not Saruman that led the Fellowship off the mountain. It was the mountain itself. PJ needed to alter the story a bit to fit it in a movie. But I fell he overdone it. Still a good movie ... not great, good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted January 2, 2002 Author Share Posted January 2, 2002 right I had been meaning to reply to this in the other thread neways.... 'Tolkiens book, The Lord of the Rings, is a book of Myth. It goes very deep. PJ's movie adaption was an action movie, not even a very good translation. ' How so? The issues are IMO faithful to the book. (and may I add stronger than those of SW). The book also contains many action scenes, so how you choose to generalise the film is your choice, but you must add that generalisation to the book too. As for changes like Arwen's role, I imagine that this was a necessity by the film company financing the film, I believe that her extended role was actually finalised by details in Tolkeins mass of notes, so at least they have tried to make the changes with as much due respect as possible. As you seem to demote LotR by labelling it 'an action film' then the same label surely has to be placed on any of the SW films. (I'm sure you agree that the action scenes are part of what you love of them both.) As for your other criticisms, they are problems you have between the conversion of the book to the film. Surely you knew that a lot of it would have to go, I think they have chosen the most important and relevent parts to keep in. Although your points are all valid, my point is that LotR is the superior film compared to any of the SW films. Maybe I am being more technical in my observations, as I am more interested in the construct of the films. I don't mean in terms of special effects, as I rate both the same in that department, SW was groundbreaking in its day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paragon_Leon Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 ...which is why i say LOTR doesn't top it. It's a movie that a lot of people want to see because they know the books, and they like the way it's put on screen, but SW was groundbreaking in EVERY way; effects, story, music... People left the theater feeling they had just seen an awesome development in movie history. LOTR doesn't give you that experience; it simply makes you feel good about the way the known story is portrayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted January 2, 2002 Author Share Posted January 2, 2002 Star Wars was not groundbreaking in every way....far from it. Aside from the effects, and story (which if you research, you will find borrows very heavily from many Fantasy books such as LotR), what is groundbreaking about the film? The music was inspired by Sergio Leone/Ennio Morricone's use of music in films. (lovely score, but Bernard Hermann still rules for me). The characters are rip offs of Akira Kurosawa films. What was groundbreaking was that such an accsessible fantasy film on the scale of SW had never been seen before. George Lucas' direction is nothing more than average. The scripts are, im sorry but I have to say this, pathetic. (saved by a charismatic Harrison Ford). It was groundbreaking because George Lucas was able to bundle it all in a sweet package. Nice action sequences though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince_Xizor Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 Altough LotR was very good....it simply doesnt have as much popularity as Star Wars. Star Wars Has been Around for almost 35 years....and I mean everyone would like to see a world where cars fly and there a blasters jetpacks and lightsabers.....they are not as intrested in the middle ages where people thought fireworks where interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 well, for one thing, don't make saruman's name so close to Sauron! I thought they were the same, and I knew him as the wizard guy, since I didn't know his name! Effects were nice, but they didn't explain much on where everyone else, like how as gandalf tied to the Braggins? Who was Sarumon? Maybe I should read the books... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted January 2, 2002 Author Share Posted January 2, 2002 you have a point, the relationship between gandalf and bilbo is in 'the hobbit' to get info you need to read that. The film offers no explanation. But as for popularity due to flying machines as opposed to fireworks, (Prince_Xizor), you are probably right if that is all you are interested in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 starwars were made in 1977-1983 and the last one in 99 maybe the one made in 2002 will be more impressive, who knows but i still think both these are really good cuz they have the most depth i ever saw in any movie or book but i havent seen lotr yet ill vote after seeing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 now that i saw it i think lotr is pretty good but not upto the calibre of starwars starwars is still a legend lotr has got class but theres less creation in it look at how much stuff had to be made up for starwars- almost all of it but lotr most of it except the few fantasy creatures is made up-though it is still interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyBOy Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 Shut up fool, you talk crap! Just kidding Star Wars is by far the superior movie just because it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agen Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 Well most people here haven't read the books and are comparing the 1st film vs the 4 sw ones. well i'd say the whole trilogy versus the sw ones is better mainly because they are. the book gave u more of a thing that u can imagine for urself but the film was very good. basically it's dwon to choice and i choose lotr but most people here like sw so obviously they're gonna be biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compa_Mighty Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 I think LOTR was too obscure. The real thing is that they just showed us the first part of the 10 hour complete film. I don't think it tops Star Wars. BTW, all different races are different-sized humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 SW trilogy brought MUCH more enjoyment than this movie did. Reasons... 1. The SW movies broke many records for box-office 2. SW movies CREATED a universe and established one of the best fantasy worlds ever by themselves 3. LOTR has tons of books to back them up. They just had to pick and choose the best parts that were proven showstopers. 4. SW movies created the fanbase you see here today 5. LOTR books created the fanbase you see today...the movie only increases it... In terms of monumental success...SW movies easily win over the LOTR movies because they created the entire SW universe from scratch. LOTR movies and just puting a bit of new exitement into their universe that has been there for years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 I think the Trilogy is much, MUCH better than LOTR. First of all, just looking at popularity, i was able to walk up to the theatre on opening night 15 minutes before the movie and get tickets. When i went in there were only a few people there early. TPM, on the other hand, was SOLD OUT as soon as they realeased tickets, which was often many days before the release. The first time when i was even able to get tickets to TPM was about a week after release. Second, i left the theatre thinking two things: "That was WAY too long", and "Thats's it?" I somehow imagined it would be better, but it wasn't. Don't get me wrong, it was a decent movie, but it was NOWHERE even close the grandeur of Star Wars. The book LOTR was epic, the movie was NOT. Just based on the simple fact that a great portion of viewers already knew the plot, characters, and background. Don't you just hate watching a movie or show for the first time if you already know what happens. My brother saw TPM before i did, and i told him not to tell me ANYTHING about the plot, because i didn't want to spoil it. Its the same way with LOTR. Thats the same reason why most people hate Episode II spoilers. Already knowing the outcome and entire story would, IMO, cut the value in half. I didn't even know the LOTR story and it still wasn't THAT great, if i knew i'd imagine it would be an average movie, if that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natopo Posted January 5, 2002 Share Posted January 5, 2002 LOTR definitly beat Harry Potter (HP sucked compared to LOTR) but did and never will beat the SW trilogy. I mean, SW was the first film ever to have special Effects. So in a way(or a certain point of view) LOTR copied from SW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted January 5, 2002 Share Posted January 5, 2002 aaaaaaaahhhhhh, I see you forgot the laser in Goldfinger. That was the first movie ever to use a laser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted January 5, 2002 Share Posted January 5, 2002 Originally posted by Artoo aaaaaaaahhhhhh, I see you forgot the laser in Goldfinger. That was the first movie ever to use a laser. But the fact remains, George invented many special effect techniques that had never been done or even attempted before. This alone sets in apart. Then they did it again in TPM with the realistic-looking CG characters right alongside actors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted January 5, 2002 Share Posted January 5, 2002 kudos, he did invent a lot of filming techniques, w/ innovation similar to what Desi Arnaz did for TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.