• Welcome to the Fable Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Fable series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

star wars vs. lord of the rings

Which do you prefer?

  • Star Wars

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Well, in my opinion...shouldn't we be debating on the movies, rather than the games?

Just my opinion, anyway. Before I tell you what I voted, let me compare the two movies:
Star Wars: Had good special effects for it's time, and some nice moments. But i'm afraid that kind of stuff covers the overall bad acting of all the films. (Liam Neeson, Jones, Mcgregor, were the only good actors really...also the guy that played old obi-wan) I believe the rest didn't do well. Hayden Christianson is just a **** poor actor, in my opinion.

Lord of the Rings: Based on a legendary novel by JRR Tolkien and his son, Christopher Tolkien. The last one in his British group to carry on the Middle Earth premise, Tolkien forged a large spectacle. Through this, he put romance...magic...action, adventure...and heart. Not only this, but Tolkien showed that power can effect anyone. But also, even the smallest person can change the course of the future.

Peter Jackson, a director of some unknown films to the majority of the public, received the rights of making a Lord of the Rings trilogy. Tolkien, because the books were so complex and long, believed the trilogy couldn't be adapted into a film. But he was wrong. In 1998, Peter Jackson began forging the Lord of the Rings movie.

Lets first look at some of the key things about the movies:

-The movies had a message. Like I said, power corrupts anyone, but even the smallest people can destroy that power.

-This movie showed that, and as the books and the movies pass by...Frodo becomes even more lured into the ring. He basically becomes mad.
-The art in this movie is spectacular. Breathtaking. Ever scene looks amazing. Rivendell, for instance, just the sheer appeal and special effects...just awesome.

-That leads to the special effects. From Nazgul to Trolls, this movie had great effects for its time...better than I see in movies today. But also, the effects blend well in the film making. It isn't like star wars, where you know from the start its CGI. LOTR had so good of CG Landscapes, you couldn't tell if they were real or not, until you found out. There's just so much to this...I can't fit it all in a post.
LOTR movies, combined, has 3,675 shots of special effects. (Didn't remember that by heart, it's off of a LOTR special edition DVD I have)
Don't believe the effects were good at the time? Well, in 1999. the crew had already made the Balrog. If you've seen the movies, thats an Oscar winning CG Monster.

-Now, the sound. The sound is awesome. When you hear the nazgul scream, it's not like a cheap godzilla roar... the sound crew put alot into the sound. When the great eye falls, they combined people screaming to snakes hissing...all these sounds put together. Just watch the movie, the sounds fit well with everything that's going on. For example, did you know that shelob's screams (the big spider in the third movie...for all you new fans) were a mix of a lion and a wolverine?

-The Music. Awesome also. We all know the original theme, the ones who've seen the movie at least. The scores are magnificent.
Into The West by Annie Lenox (YouTube - Annie Lenox - Into The West) is based on Frodo going to the undying lands. And as he sails on the ship, he leaves a lot of his friends behind..and because of this powerful ring, he must sail away and never come back. But, he smiles...because he knows that even though he's leaving...his friends will be alright.

The song is also based on a young director with cancer, whom the singer of this song knew. When she says go,"Into the West' she not only refers to Frodo, but also the director sailing away to Heaven. (Of course, there isn't a Heaven in LOTR...but there is one somewhat of that)

When frodo leaves sam at the steps in ROTK, a faint song plays in the background. The music is so beautiful, you'll have to listen to it yourself. Go ahead, get some songs off of limewire or rent the movie...all the tracks are great.

-The Acting. Superb. Every actor, unlike Star Wars, does fantastic. They put so much emotion into it...they go the extra limit. It's hard to explain..but when you see the movie, you'll shed some tears from some parts.

Here are some good parts:
Frodo: I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.Gandalf: So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you were also meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought.

Pippin: I didn't think it would end this way.
Gandalf: End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path... One that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass... And then you see it.
Pippin: What? Gandalf?... See what?
Gandalf: White shores... and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise.
Pippin: [smiling] Well, that isn't so bad.
Gandalf: [softly] No... No it isn't. (In the background, you hear the Into The West chorus...faintly playing the score)

-The action. This speaks for itself, way more than Star Wars. I mean, you can't disagree.

-The heart. Like the quotes above, the LOTR movies were saying this:
"Power corrupts anyone. Even the happiest person or the quietest folk. And when it does, your decisions...your mind...your heart, changes. But as long as you have a companion with you, and you go the distance, you can get rid of that power...even if it risks your life.

And during the long ages of war, your personality is changed. As you enter town, you see the happiest people you saw before. But, you are not the same. Your quiet, sad of the ones you lost, depressed slightly. And you can't quite explain what you've seen, or the places you've been to. You just carry on in life, and keep your spirit alive.

But as darkness arises and shadow fills the sky, a friend always keeps the light shining. When your falling down, your friend gives you the hand.

And when you die, it is just another stage in life. "

Tolkien put alot of heart in the books, not just action and suspense. He put reality.

And Peter Jackson puts just the same in the Movie.
This movie won a bakers dozen of Oscars, and they deserved it. They should be remembered as a milestone in Movie, and Book, history.
-So what did I vote for? LOTR. And just for those reasons above. But before you doubt me, let me put a quote from the two towers:

Frodo
: I can't do this, Sam.
Sam: I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.
Frodo: What are we holding onto, Sam?
Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.

Take that, Star Wars
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

We shouldn't really be looking at the movies at all. In my opinion, the LotR movies were good, as movies, but they didn't do the Tolkien Universe justice.

The Tolkien Universe is the birthplace of modern day RPGs that use elves, orcs, dwarves ect ect.... Which I, personally, worship Tolkien for.

Goblins, ogres, trolls, orcs - he invented them all!
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

If it weren't for him, I wouldn't be known as the greater orc slayer. *sniff* I kill my next for you, Tolkein.
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

I would say Star Wars as it is legendary and a classic francise everyone has heard of and most people loved it as kids, as did i and i have lots of great memories about it.
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

I think both are good and will be remembered, but like Tsuyu said: Without Tolkien, there probably wouldn't be any fantasy regarding orcs,goblins,elves...etc...today!

I just thought the situation was like when I talked to my friend,"Well...star wars had KOTOR..." And I go, "Well...without tolkien, there wouldn't just be LOTR or the movies...but there wouldn't be the idea of orcs, goblins,trolls,elves!"O.o

But a lot of people bypass the messages in these books. I mean, yea, Tolkien created the idea of the orcs, etc...but he also meant a lot of other things. When Frodo gives the book to Sam at the Grey Havens (in the book, but it's also in the movie), he tells him to continue the story. Tolkien wanted readers to continue his story, continue Middle Earth, and make it a tale everyone will remember. ^_^

I also like the style of LOTR better than Star Wars....I mean, I just love that medieval sense. I really just don't like Futuristic Movies, I won't lie. But like Tolkien said, "the art of war is no more". That's because there isn't any motivation to it, no celts on horseback. :wacko:

Though, I do like how Lucas brings the art of war by pulling in Lightsabers. And what's cool about that is...this concept of an old blade can now do more than just slice...and it can beat the modern warfare (such as guns):D

By the way, saying the Simarillion is bland...is just like saying a sundae has no taste, in my opinion.:lol:
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

LionHeadTex;102526 said:
But like Tolkien said, "the art of war is no more".

Though, I do like how Lucas brings the art of war by pulling in Lightsabers. And what's cool about that is...this concept of an old blade can now do more than just slice...and it can beat the modern warfare (such as guns):D

With lightsabers Lucas kept the idea of old style sword fighting and the honour of one on one duels to the death but with that futuristic twist.
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

lol.....i like to debate....i seriously think LotR is faaaaaaar better than SW....it show alot more.....how should i say.....happy...moments.....sometimes...SW is too tense....i never really like SW that much....movies are great though...still ike LotR better......must....play.....LotR....BfmE 2......:wub:
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Two points: First, STOP CALLING LORD OF THE RINGS A TRILOGY!!! Yes, I'm obsessed with them too. But the point is that it ISN'T a trilogy. A trilogy is Star Wars-- three movies within the same general arc, but each with its own independent story. Lord of the Rings is a single story-- that of the journey to destroy the Ring-- with several subplots and diversions along the way.

Second: This is a difficult question, but I finally decided on Lord of the Rings after .000002 picoseconds of intense deliberation. While there are some portions of Tolkien's work that are not as good as The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, it is all the work of one man, with one (mostly) coherent ideal throughout. The language, the geography, the story, everything is created and everything has thought given to it. Whereas Star Wars is a hodgepodge of roughly fifty billion different authors and game developers loosely organized by Lucas and his employees. Yes, this has its own benefits, but I've read one too many of them on the order of the "Jedi Prince" series, or the New Jedi Order to like them as much as Tolkien's stuff. At least Tolkien's world is consistent (down to the very bedrock, sometimes literally).

Tolkien had the huge benefit of working more for his own enjoyment than to make money, too.

I am surprised, though, that Tsuyu preferred Tolkien to Lucas. After all, with Lucas he has Leia in her sheet metal bikini, Mara Jade, etc. All Tolkien gives him is Arwen, Galadriel, Eowyn, and whatsername-- Farmer Cotton's daughter, the one Sam marries. And she had furry feet.

Edit:

Tsuyu;102510 said:
We shouldn't really be looking at the movies at all. In my opinion, the LotR movies were good, as movies, but they didn't do the Tolkien Universe justice.

The Tolkien Universe is the birthplace of modern day RPGs that use elves, orcs, dwarves ect ect.... Which I, personally, worship Tolkien for.

Goblins, ogres, trolls, orcs - he invented them all!

Hell yes. The movies couldn't even reach up far enough to kiss the books' feet. Though really, he didn't create those things-- just the modern versions, and their use in High/Epic Fantasy. And High/Epic Fantasy itself.

On the subject of The Silmarillon being bland: he stories aren't, but the writing is. I had trouble reading the damn thing, and I loved the books. It wasn't badly written, but the style wasn't that of a novel-- it struck me as kind of biblical.

EDIT:

Oh, and yeah, I did read the others. The Grand Admiral Thrawn books, Admiral Daala books, and Truce at Bakura were the best ones, plus all the others Timothy Zahn wrote (as I remember he was one of the original guys to use Thrawn-- maybe his creator. He did the C'Baoth/Thrawn trilogy. Hand of Thrawn Trilogy, maybe? I can remember the covers of the books, but not the names.
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Walker;102692 said:
Though really, he didn't create those things-- just the modern versions, and their use in High/Epic Fantasy. And High/Epic Fantasy itself.


Most of the stuff comes from Nordic Mythology (which in fact, is kickass since I am Swede). Most notably are the dwarves, who are pulled straight out of there, keeping every trait along the way.
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Dark Drakan;102517 said:
I would say Star Wars as it is legendary and a classic francise everyone has heard of and most people loved it as kids, as did i and i have lots of great memories about it.

Well, yes Star Wars has a much bigger fan base and franchise and all, because it was shown as a movie long before The Lord of the Rings movies were, although LOTR has been around a lot longer.:P Still it appeals more to kids now, although there are plenty of older Star Wars fans. Plus it's the fans that keep the Star Wars universe alive, not George Lucas(sorry for anyone who disagrees). Star Wars has always been the more popular out of the two, until finally the LOTR movies came out and then the games. However, it's still more popular, but Lord of the Rings has shown us a different side of a new universe...which is better.:P:lol:
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

The bottom line is that people watch too much movies, and read too little these days... Tolkien and his Universe were until these latest movies (there has been others before them) mostly been known through his books, whilst Star Wars has always been known through the movies.
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Tsuyu;102728 said:
The bottom line is that people watch too much movies, and read too little these days... Tolkien and his Universe were until these latest movies (there has been others before them) mostly been known through his books, whilst Star Wars has always been known through the movies.
Agreed. Everyone wants more Star Wars, but I want more LOTR. It had a better base to it, and even though not every little kid liked it...that doesn't mean it isn't a franchise. LOTR was released in 1952 (?), Star Wars in the 70's (?).

We should read more, because that gives us more imagination. Tolkien's books were so huge, I actually enjoyed reading them more than watching Star Wars. Might sound crazy for some, but I like to judge something by its art...more than the amount of special effects it has :cool:

Both have great fans, of course

But of course, this isn't a contest who has enough fans. It's how much it can touch your heart, whether you prefer action...drama...or a little bit of both. Book or movie. That's what I think.
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Seem the arguments against Star Wars neglect the expanded universe

you have to take the whole not just one medium

Books go to LOTR*
Movies go to Star Wars
Games go Star Wars
Web Sites go to Star Wars
Fan Fiction go to Star Wars
Animated Series go to Star Wars
Christmas Specials go to Star Wars

Star Wars has a lot more content but LOTR is arguably the greatest trilogy of all time
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Walker;102692 said:
Two points: First, STOP CALLING LORD OF THE RINGS A TRILOGY!!! Yes, I'm obsessed with them too. But the point is that it ISN'T a trilogy. A trilogy is Star Wars-- three movies within the same general arc, but each with its own independent story. Lord of the Rings is a single story-- that of the journey to destroy the Ring-- with several subplots and diversions along the way.

Second: This is a difficult question, but I finally decided on Lord of the Rings after .000002 picoseconds of intense deliberation. While there are some portions of Tolkien's work that are not as good as The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, it is all the work of one man, with one (mostly) coherent ideal throughout. The language, the geography, the story, everything is created and everything has thought given to it. Whereas Star Wars is a hodgepodge of roughly fifty billion different authors and game developers loosely organized by Lucas and his employees. Yes, this has its own benefits, but I've read one too many of them on the order of the "Jedi Prince" series, or the New Jedi Order to like them as much as Tolkien's stuff. At least Tolkien's world is consistent (down to the very bedrock, sometimes literally).

Tolkien had the huge benefit of working more for his own enjoyment than to make money, too.

I am surprised, though, that Tsuyu preferred Tolkien to Lucas. After all, with Lucas he has Leia in her sheet metal bikini, Mara Jade, etc. All Tolkien gives him is Arwen, Galadriel, Eowyn, and whatsername-- Farmer Cotton's daughter, the one Sam marries. And she had furry feet.

Edit:



Hell yes. The movies couldn't even reach up far enough to kiss the books' feet. Though really, he didn't create those things-- just the modern versions, and their use in High/Epic Fantasy. And High/Epic Fantasy itself.

On the subject of The Silmarillon being bland: he stories aren't, but the writing is. I had trouble reading the damn thing, and I loved the books. It wasn't badly written, but the style wasn't that of a novel-- it struck me as kind of biblical.

EDIT:

Oh, and yeah, I did read the others. The Grand Admiral Thrawn books, Admiral Daala books, and Truce at Bakura were the best ones, plus all the others Timothy Zahn wrote (as I remember he was one of the original guys to use Thrawn-- maybe his creator. He did the C'Baoth/Thrawn trilogy. Hand of Thrawn Trilogy, maybe? I can remember the covers of the books, but not the names.

wat do u mean its not a trilogy? it is...Star Wars Trilogy is a single story too......
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Rhadiel;102793 said:
wat do u mean its not a trilogy? it is...Star Wars Trilogy is a single story too......


Uh yeah, I must agree. LotR series is three books, three movies so no matter how you look at it, it is a trilogy.

The tolkien universe however expands beyond it, naturally.


Trilogy;

A literary composition, usually a novel or a play, written in three parts, each of which is a complete unit in itself.
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

i wanna get the new LotR book....its like when Souron is still alive...and he was just a general in the army or somthing like that.....LotR : The Children of Hurin
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Lord of the Rings is way better.
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

complete unit in itself Is the key phrase there.

All the Star Wars movies are complete units in and of themselves. If you watch one, you don't have to rush out and see the others. You can watch any as a standalone and be perfectly happy.

Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, while it is possible to read one Volume (The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King) and still understand and comprehend it, doing so can be difficult. I don't speak of the movies here, just the books. Each Book (there are six of them, two per Volume) tells a small portion of the story-- it does have its own storyline, but it is secondary to the story of the Ring. Each Volume also has a general storyline, but only as a part of the whole-- the same as chapters in a novel have their own plot.

For instance the Fellowship of the Ring tells the story of the journey to Rivendell from the Shire and to just above the Falls of Rauros from Rivendell-- all as a part of the journey to destroy the Ring at Mount Doom. Star Wars: A New Hope, on the other hand, tells the story of the killings of Luke's family, his flight, and the fight against the First Death Star. Yes, the Star Wars Trilogy has the overarching "plot" of the fight against the Empire... but, really, does that qualify as a plot?

You could say (to continue using the Fellowship of the Ring example, since I don't remember the others as well) that Fellowship is a complete story, with the quest to reach Rivendell/Imaldris, but I'm not sure what the self-contained plot for the second Book (which I think begins after Frodo gets knocked unconscious at the Ford) could be, so that's only a self-contained plot for half the Volume, before you get into what is mostly total Lord of the Rings plot. Maybe you could use the journey through Moria to satisfy the self-contained requirement, but that's really more part of the Ring plot.

And by the by-- my inspiration for this little bit of bickering is some half-remembered reference by some book saying that Tolkien at one point raised the issue that Lord of the Ring was NOT a trilogy... though I think I later heard that he called it a trilogy at one point, but then I even do that sometimes. What other word is there for something that comes in three parts? I mean, aside from "Trinity," which definitely doesn't apply... though the Lord of the Rings IS nearly as sacred. [grin]

Oh, and AK? You're right. Star Wars does beat Lord of the Rings in a lot of ways simply because there's more of it. And there's more of it because it's been pretty mainstream right from the start, and made a lot of money all along.

Edit: Rhadiel, "general" is probably the wrong word. He was a servant of Morgoth (or Melko, I can never remember which is the real/final name). He was to Melko/Morgoth what the Nazgul/Ringwraiths would later be to him.

And no, I have no idea what this "new" book is. All I've heard is the title. And I know who Hurin is. I'm just speaking from the Silmarillon and the accompanying partial thingamajigs.
 
Re: star wars vs. lord of the rings

Yeah, I see what you're saying. SW is like a series, whereas LotR is more like separate installments of one story.
 
Back
Top