star wars vs. lord of the rings

[Tsuyu]

Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

I still can't agree on saying that it's a trilogy by the definition of trilogy.

When it is published in the most common way of three books, it is the definition of a trilogy, and that was my point all along.

As for the whole thingy being one, as I've now come to realize, is not since it was never really intended to be published in this way.

Oh, and about The Hobbit; I actually think that has to be my favourite book by Tolkien. It is really... charming, and was one of the first fantasy books I read when I was younger, without knowing it was the "start" of the LotR, so I was kinda amazed when I read the LotR books later on.

 

[Walker]

Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

GAAAAAAH!!!!! You're the one who posted the definition! Please tell me how the Lord of the Rings qualifies as having been "written in three parts?" I won't brihng up the debate whether each each volume is a "complete unit in itself," so ignore that point.

Rambling About When I read Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit

Yeah, I have no idea what order I read them in. I think I read The Hobbit first and the Fellowship of the Ring second, then didn't finish the other two volumes of Lord of the Rings until later that school year. But I don't remember, really because I first read them in second grade (for those of you with different educational systems, kindergarten at about five years old, then 1st a year later and so on up to 12th, so I was 6 or 7) and I didn't reread them all until seventh grade (11 or 12). I think I read The Hobbit several times over those years, though. And I'm 17 now (okay, 17 in 8 days, but close enough) so I'm probably going to reread them sometime soon.

Um... yeah, I'm rereading it, to make a long story short. Just need to find one of the huge-*** All-3-Volumes-in-one tomes. I might end up reading the separate volumes, but I don't like doing that because it's too easy to lose them. Trust me, when you have the huge 1,000+ page tome (counting the appendices) you aren't going to lose it.

 

[Tsuyu]

Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

GAAAAAAH!!!!! You're the one who posted the definition! Please tell me how the Lord of the Rings qualifies as having been "written in three parts?" I won't brihng up the debate whether each each volume is a "complete unit in itself," so ignore that point.

Keep in mind that I, at the time, had no idea that some sneaky publisher altered the release and as such thought the default 3-books-package was the way Tolkien wrote it.

Rambling About When I read Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit

Yeah, I have no idea what order I read them in. I think I read The Hobbit first and the Fellowship of the Ring second, then didn't finish the other two volumes of Lord of the Rings until later that school year. But I don't remember, really because I first read them in second grade (for those of you with different educational systems, kindergarten at about five years old, then 1st a year later and so on up to 12th, so I was 6 or 7) and I didn't reread them all until seventh grade (11 or 12). I think I read The Hobbit several times over those years, though. And I'm 17 now (okay, 17 in 8 days, but close enough) so I'm probably going to reread them sometime soon.

Um... yeah, I'm rereading it, to make a long story short. Just need to find one of the huge-*** All-3-Volumes-in-one tomes. I might end up readint the separate volumes, but I don't like doing that because it's too easy to lose them. Trust me, when you have the huge 1,000+ page tome (counting the appendices) you aren't going to lose it.

Yeah, about the same here. The Hobbit was a book I borrowed from school when I was perhaps 10-13, too bad I didn't keep it really. I've got tons of books from all those years ago that I forgot to give back, and nobody has bothered me about it. Nyahahahaha....

 

[Walker]

Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

But... but... [wails] you just said it was the very definition of "trilogy" again! (oh, I am so confused)

[Evil snicker] Yeah, I've retained a couple books over the years, too. About eight books or so I borrowed from teachers or hospitals (don't ask) and never gave back. When my brother had to read Call of the Wild/White Fang in middle school (it was a two-in-one book) he kept that. Regrettably, someone had torn out something like three pages right where Buck was fighting the other dog in Call of the Wild, so all I know is that poor little Bucky survived.

 

[Tsuyu]

Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

But... but... [wails] you just said it was the very definition of "trilogy" again! (oh, I am so confused)

Yes, when it is released in the "three-books-version" it is, however I've learnt that that was just some publisher who went over Tolkien's choice, as he wrote it differently, not as a trilogy.

 

[Walker]

Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Um... but the definition of trilogy you posted said "written in three parts" not "published or released in three parts," did it not?

 

[Tsuyu]

Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Um... but the definition of trilogy you posted said "written in three parts" not "published or released in three parts," did it not?

Yes, and as I've said countless times by now, I had never heard of Tolkien's intentions not to make it a trilogy, and assumed the three-books-publishing was what he wrote it for, thereby fitting perfectly into the trilogy definition.

 

[fanek]

Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Star wars are just better then LOTR. I don't like LOTR because it's not my type of movie, however I think the trilogy is good ;-), but Star Wars are just fantastic for me, I love that saga!

 

[andythegill]

Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

lord of the ring is wayyy better,
what would you prefer to see, some little green guy with a torch or a man with a sword run through a monster

 

[Arseface]

Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Star Wars has waaay cooler moves, but I like LotR better cause of the story

 

[Gikoku]

Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Are you kidding me?...Star Wars, dude. I mean come on, Darth Vader..need i say more?

 

[Dark Drakan]

Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

lord of the ring is wayyy better,
what would you prefer to see, some little green guy with a torch or a man with a sword run through a monster

That 'torch' is one of best weapons in a story ever made. The lightsaber is legendary and id much prefer something that can slice through most things and can be retracted than a sword any day.

 

[Albion Knight]

Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

lord of the ring is wayyy better,
what would you prefer to see, some little green guy with a torch or a man with a sword run through a monster

Yoda would kick Gandolf's butt
Go ahead and have your "One Ring" I'll take the Death Star. Have fun trying to "Rule them all" as vaporized bits floating in space :lol:

 

[Walker]

Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Here's the problem, though: sure, you can vaporize them, but after you vaporize immortals they tend to come back extremely angry. I can see it now: the once-in-a-lifetime alliance of the watchyamacallem-- Valar and Sauron, plus (just for the hell of it) Morgoth (unless his official name is the other one that I don't remember), with the sole purpose of kicking Palpatine's mangy buttocks.

And I won't even get into Yoda vs. Gandalf. I think it's much more likely that they'd sit down, share a pipe or two, and ***** about Luke and Frodo; or Saruman and Anakin.

That is a good question, though: pyrokinesis vs. telekinesis. Who would win?