Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

There can be only one fantasy trilogy!

Which is the better trilogy and who is better George Lucas or Peter Jackson?

The Original Star Wars Trilogy is the one to rule them all.

Lord Of The Rings all the way!!!

LOTR... George Lucas admitted that a lot of the inspiration for SW was LOTR.

Err....Star Wars is Sci-fi. LOTR is Fantasy. Both are winners and the Matrix trilogy sucks. There, the argument is finish.

Lucas and Jackson

Star Wars kicks LOTR's ass. And SW was inspired by Flash Gordon, I thought....

I think the two are on par with one another, personally. On scale, P.J.'s got his number, though.

First of all SW is a sage 6 movies LOTR is a trilogy 3 movies..........and while LOTR is excellent, it doesnt equal SW IMHO.

Star Wars, defintely.

LoTR has too many characters to keep track of if you haven't read the books, and majority of the people who have seen LoTR haven't read them...

Not to mention I love sci fi

But Spear, both LOTR and Star Wars have a lot of characters. Some times is hard to keep track of all of them. Plus the SW Universe is as large as Middle Earth.

Since the first two films STAR WARS AND EMPIRE STRIKES BACK are my two favorite films of all time,I want to say I agree on that,but since Return of the jedi was such a dissapointment and I thought all of the 3 Lord of the rings films were all good and were not dissapointed with them,I got to give this to Lord of the rings.

LOTR...w/o even thinking twice.

Are you kidding? Comparing Star Wars to LOTR? Star Wars is better! It accomplished more in films 30% shorter.

neither

Ok, let me rescind my statement. There's more important characters in LoTR than in Star Wars, and it's a bit east to lose track of them.

Star Wars, no contest. LOTR sucks IMO.

u suck

You should hear who I think is one of the worse big name actors as well.

**hint** check your avatar **hint**

Don't think I can compare. Both beyond great. Each has different worlds. So I would go with both.

both arre so different. and both can get you lost ...EASILY. as far as fights i thought SW was better and the bad guys rock hard in SW but LOTR (in my humble opinion) has a better story (i kinda hate space) and the books are works of art

By the way, the Star Wars Universe is much bigger and more complex than the LOTR universe... The amount of books and such created is insane compared to only about 25 books for LOTR.

starwars all the way, lotr movie glory died way to fast after rotk won best picture. The legacy of starwars lives throughout the generations and going.

lotr was first a book, sw was first a movie. It's hard to compare. But if you're going to compare lotr movies to sw movies, then sw for sure.

What about Star Trek vs. Star Wars? can you compare both sci-fi franchises?

LOTR all the way, no contest at all, I like SW don't get me wrong there, but the characters in LOTR are way more intresting, more heroic then the once in SW, flying around with spacecrafts and shotin with blasters dosent hold up to the heroic figures and huge battles and the intense story that LOTR has, and I like the univers in LOTR alot more then the SW, Tolkien created languages for each civilasation and all, things that george lucas never would be able to compare with!

star wars, its bigger and better

But most of that stuff is not originally made by Lucas. Whereas all the books from LOTR are the product of the mind of Tolkien.

ya alot of the sw saga is fanfiction, or I'm I wrong

i dont know i like them both so much......

Really, well Tolkien invented a LANGUAGE to compliment his story and i don't mean afew pissy words and sayings. Also Tolkiens world stretches across far more than just LOTR and The Hobbit. To top it off, he wrote it all with the exception of some additions and edits by his son.

Lucas on the other hand is responsible for Star Wars and thats it, oh and Indiana jones. He had the rough idea for ESB and ROTJ and brought screenwriters for the movie and a writer for the novelisations. As for the other books in the series, well none of them are by Lucas and he doesn't even regard them as cannon.

In that sense, LOTR wins hands down; however the OT is legend and beyond comparison. So if you were to ask me whats better, The Prequels or LOTR, it'd have to be LOTR but then, you could put alot of stuff up against the new Star Wars movies and find the still find the prequels lacking.

of course, but the original three sw beat lord of the rings no problem

This is easy, Star Wars.

I love both movies, but Star Wars takes it for me, all you have to do is look at how popular the films still are today. I mean the dvds sold almost twice as much as any LOTR dvds did and they are almost 30 yrs. old. The Return of the King really cheapened the end of the trilogy for me. We get to see Eowyn fight the witch king instead of Gandalf, WTF? We get to see Marry's little happy story about trying to be a warrior, nobody cares, they just had nothing in it that made the first two good. It was such an overrated movie because it was the critics darlings and thought LOTR could do no wrong, which the Public ate up.

LOTR is a billion times better than SW.
LOTR as an entity has been popular for 50 years not just twenty.



rolleyes1
Did you read the wrong book or something?

Cal out of the 3 films, ROTK is, IMO, the closest one to the book and the most entertaining. Compare that to say, AOTC, and it's no contest; the new prequels don't come close to being half the film LOTR is. As much as i love star wars, i have to give credit where credit is due.

in a film sense the SW films were 1000000000000000000000000 times better than the LOTR.

I kinda agree with that.as I said earlier,as a trilogy I think Lord of the rings is better because ALL 3 of those movies were good.with Star wars,only A NEW HOPE AND EMPIRE STRIKES BACK were magical great films.Return of the jedi was such a joke and not at all well written like the first two films were.Instead of feeling like a magical movie experience like the first two did,it felt more like a comicbook.so because of that I got to go with Lord of the rings since none of those films were dissapointing.I dont feel there has been a good star wars movie made since Empire Strikes Back.If were just talking about the first two films,I agree that they were 1000000 times better than Lord Of The Rings,but not if you include Return Of the jedi in there.

i think people hate rotj because of the ewoks.

Yes I did, but he changed a lot of stuff the movies, and in the movie we see the witch king say he's gonna kill Gandalf, but instead of being able to see that fight, we get to see dumb ass Eowyn fight and say" I am no man", thanks for the cheesiest line I've ever heard in a big movie .

We aren't talking about the books here, we're talking the movies, and in no way shape or form will the movies be better remembered than Star Wars.Books are a completely different story. The LOTR films wouldn't even have been made if Star Wars hadn't.

Ah heck! Star Trek rules them all!

It comes down to personal preference really. I prefer the LOTR's films to the SW films, just a tad.

*AHEM*

Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace

"Are you an angel?" - Anakin

"Now THIS is Podracing!" - Anakin

"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent" - Qui Gon Jinn

Stop me if you've heard these..lol.

"I don't like sand, it's course and it gets everywhere, unlike you."

As cheesy as those lines are, CA, I blieve this one tops them.

You, sir, are correct.

actually BF, i think he says something more like "I don't like sand, it's coarse and rough and it gets everywhere, not like here, here everythings soft.. and smooth" etc. etc.

No, I know it ends with 'Not like you". I'll double check tonight after work to make sure though.

I think you're right. Either way, it's still awful. I have to cringe every time I hear that line!

I just went and checked on my dvd, he says 'not like here' but it can kinda sound like 'not like you'.

Then there is..

"Oh, no! I'd be much too frightened to tease a senator!"

Hayden..Anakin..whoever the **** you are...

http://www.corsicas.com/corys/homo.jpg

Best way to avoid that line? Don't watch it. Although to me thats not the worst line. The worst line comes from Sam Jackson; i mean, what kind of Jedi says 'This party's over' They should dub some pulp fiction lines in there...I'd kill to hear mace windu talk about giving a biatch a foot massage

Nice.

"I am no man" still takes it in my book.

It was expoiting the irony of the situation, and had it actually been DELIVERED in a corny fashion, I'd understand. But, it wasn't, and I don't, so there you have it.

It was fricken corny, how could the witch king, the most terrifying person other than Sauron himself, miss a weak woman with the weapons he had? It just wouldn't happen, plus on top of that you have that gay ass line and that totally ruined it. I've gone on LOTR forums and even die hard fans there have said they think it's really corny.

Frodo makes C3PO look tough.

To add to that, LOTR easily has the most sissy's. Even the "tough" guys looked like chicks with their locks.

ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tolkien is rolling in his grave LOTR is one book one movie so its not a trilogy its one 9 hour long movie with breathers in the middle he was sooooooo pissed when they split his books.

the movie made them look like that

the movie dosen't explain that the swod Merry has is the only weapon that can pierce the Witch kings armor.... and it dosen't explain that she is one of the best swordsmen of Rohan The movie line was lame.... the book version rocks....

Star Wars is soooo much better than the LOTR in EVERY ways!!
STAR WARS RULES!!!!

True, the movie itself is very wimpy. They should have called the movies, Lord of the Metro Sexuals.

That's what I'm saying, I have nothing wrong with the books, they're perfect, but the way they pulled it off in the movie was dumb.

Like the other movies, in order to get the best impression and understanding you need to watch the extended editions. But if you'd read the books you'd know what was missing and like everyone else wouldn't care. It's only confusing to the uninitiated.

"No Man Am I" > "I Am No Man" yes you're right thats a HUGE difference. rolleyes1

So they made a slight mistake in leaving in ONE line, that indicates that Gandalf does fight the Wiki then they cut out the part where he fights the Wiki (which WILL be in the EE) but left the line in there. Thats it thats the mistake you're talking about. WOW big deal one line most people probably didn't even notice, since apparently they were too busy trying to keep up with all the characters, even though most of them are completely different (Elves, Men, Hobbits, Dwarves... yes it must be impossible to keep up rolleyes1) everything else is as it should be Eowyn kills the Wiki and Merry helps JUST like they do in the book.



I said AS AN ENTITY...

Could I borrow that crystal ball you've got? I'd like to see in to the future too. rolleyes1

SW wouldn't have been made without LOTR, and to attempt to seperate LOTR book from the movie when you're talking about influence is ludicrous.

OK, you've definately read the wrong book or far more likely you haven't read it at all.

Eowyn killed the Wiki IN THE BOOK and its virtually the same line in the book, if anything LOTR purists would be complaining that a lot of the dialogue was cut. I AM DIEHARD FAN, I've been a LOTR fan for 21 years, in fact I remember when SW was first in the cinema.



She could kill the Wiki because she is woman and Merry could hurt him because Merry isn't a man at all.

LOTR: FOTR: Book One, p.153 (description of Aragorn): "As Frodo drew near he threw back his hood, showing a shaggy head of dark hair flecked with grey."

Shaggy: generally used to denote long hair.

On the front cover of my copy of LOTR that I bought before the movies came out Gandalf has long grey hair.

LOTR: FOTR : Book Two: p. 345: "and the hair of Lord Celeborn was of silver long and bright."

Boromir
Legolas and Gimli
Saruman
Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas
Aragorn

I think the idea that the men in LOTR would've had long hair is a fairly safe assumption, you may not have imagined them with long hair, I know I did, and I know other LOTR fans (people who've been fans for as long in some cases even longer than me)who imagined them with long hair, so clearly all this shows that I'm far from the only one.

Besides anyone who thinks having long hair makes you a pansy (or something) is a moron.

LOTR was an excellent movie to be sure, but in no way does it compare with Star Wars for sheer fandom. I dont recall there being tons of LOTR coventions? Star Wars is 27 yeasrs old and even TODAY these conventions and all the merchandising is still going strong. I also need to point out that one of the things that made LOTR so damn big was the size of Orlando Bloom's teeny boppy fan base. No one can say that didnt have an effect on that movies $$ take. Many of us read the whole LOTR stuff back in high school and then pretty much forgot about it until the movies came out. SW on the hand sticks with ya forever. Take it from an old woman.

Wow, you're a geek. Not knocking you, but makes me feel less nerdy. Anyway, my point wasn't that just because they have long hair they're pansy's. My point was that the characters are pansy's (my opinion of course), and they even looked like pansy's. Long hair, short hair, doesn't matter. A sissy is a sissy. If they would have had short hair, they still would have looked like pansy's to me. It's a cool movie though, not knocking the film itself. Just saying the characters are pretty wimpy, and pretty wimpy looking to boot.

There are plenty of LOTR conventions, believe me.

Actually its totally the opposite way round, LOTR made Orlando famous, he was still at acting school when LOTR got hold of him.

Take it from another old woman, I've been a LOTR fan for about twenty years, so has my sister, my mum has been one for at the very least thirty years. So just because your experience is that you read LOTR once and then forgot about it, it does NOT speak for everyone, not even close... don't use your own limited experience to draw conclusions about something like LOTR... it has been popular for fifty years, LOTR stays with most people for life... your point is well... pointless because its based on nothing at all, how could that possibly be true when its been popular for so long.

On the other hand I watched SW when it first came out and I really couldn't give a stuff about it, in fact now I find it boring, so this is clearly an entirely personal thing, so you can't base any assumptions on it, because it doesn't apply to everyone, not even close.



I don't mind being a geek, at all.

You are entitled to your opinion, I happen to disagree, but thats beside the point.

In terms of success, Lord of the Rings wins by virtue of all the awards, box office gross, and critcal praise it got. In terms of impact, they tie. Both have revolutionized the way Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies are made, and they both introduced breakthrough SFX techniques. So overall, LotR wins

please let's not forget "I will be the most powerful Jedi ever"
Everytime i hear makes me want to strangle him . But i love Star (not hardcore like some people) but still...LOTR is better IMO. the story is much more thoughout, the overall look is extremely well done and consistant (unlike SW due to difference in the era's in which the movies were made).

SW is great, but i just cant seem to get lost in its universe like i do in LOTR's middle-earth. *sniff *sniff*....did i smell chesse off that last line

So are you saying they do look tough? Geez, I'd hate to see what you think a sissy is.

Who's more tough:

http://www.kopparlundsgymnasiet.nu/njuz_3/pics/frodo.jpg

or

http://www.collagevideo.com/instructorgraphics/Richard-Simmons.jpg

?

I'd have to go with Simmons on this one.

it was to a degree.. also lotr came from someone elses writing.. so jackson didnt have to create a story, lucas created his mostly form the ground up.. it was also a very new idea for a movie and the execs were not happy about it before it came out.. then everyone loved it... SW wins by far

same to you el toro.. with the story being more thougth out.. he copied a book he didnt have to think about the story just how hed shoot it... plus LOTR is more like 1 movie anyway than it is a trillogy where as each SW can stand alone

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Then I truly have no more respect for humanity

I wouldn't go that far although the story was already there, a book like the LOTR doesn't just automatically translate to screen, it takes a lot of talent. Why do you think no-one made the entire thing before PJ? People believed it was impossible to film (not just because of the necessity for CGI)... in fact I'd say your argument works better the other way round.

George Lucas started with nothing so he could do what ever he wanted.

On the other hand PJ had too stick close enough to the original to please as many book fans as possible (something he did exceedingly well), but also make a book written 50 years ago by a professor of old english with made up languages (sp?) in it, that is over 1000 pages long, into a film, audiences who'd never even heard of LOTR could enjoy.



You could at least have been fair and picked the toughest character, poor Frodo he's only a little hobbit.

The same could have been said if it was Frodo who was the toughest out of the two.

That has nothing to do with my statement. The EU of Star Wars and the EU of LOTR is what I was comparing. And Star Wars's is better.

Plus - Star Wars has had a lasting effect on culture. I've almost forgotten Lord Of The Rings already.

Uh..George Lucas took ideas from "The Hidden Fortress", "Metropolis", religion in general, war movies, and god knows what else. He's like the Sci Fi equvalent of Quentin Tarantino, and to say he had "nothing to work with" is garbage.

He threw a bunch of stuff on a wall, hoped it would stick, it did, and out came "Star Wars".

Wrong, ANH still has grossed more money than any LOTR film and without Star Wars, LOTR wouldn't have been made. You have to understand that up until ANH, nothing like that had ever been tried in a film before, so there is no way you can say LOTR impacted the film industry as much as Star Wars, it just isn't true. You can argue that LOTR is much better, but there is no way that it revolutionized the film industry as much as Star Wars. You look at most directors of the past 20 years, and look what they say was probably the biggest inspiration to make movies, Star Wars. Peter Jackson even said this himself. I just don't understand how people can argue that LOTR introduced ground breaking effects or anything like that, almost every special effect in that movie had been done before to a certain extent. The same can't not be said for Star Wars.

He didn't have three books to copy from though as Peter Jackson did, there is a huge difference there. Instead of thinking how to end the 2nd act or draw the movie to a conclusion like Lucas did, all Peter Jackson had to do is look at the book, read the last chapter.

when it comes down to it, lord of the rings, in this day and age, was a breathtaking achievement in movie-making, no question, but star wars is star wars, it has that magical quality, the feeling u get in the pit of your stomach when the words "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away..." appear on the screen. also...



what a load of bullshit, as was mentioned earlier jackson (who is a brilliant director nonetheless) had books to copy, lucas had an idea, yes he had staff, but the fact is every design, every word, every single minute detail created had to be approved by lucas, if he had done wrong we wouldnt be comparing these two great movie series' now would we? lucas had an idea, a brilliant idea which was crafted into some briliant movies, maybe lotr was better than the new sw movies, but a new hope and empire strikes back are better than their counterparts.

In the US maybe, world wide is another story

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide

first of all your right about the money side of things, but you have to take into account lots of things, firstly that the volume of people going to the cinema had dramatically increased in the past ten-fifteen years, especially in europe, while the money part is right, i wonder how big the audiences were considering how cheap it was to go to the movies back then compared to now.

LOTR woooooooooo! I don't care what the stars wars geeks say The Lord of the rings was a great book way b4 lukas made the movie which was pretty dumb I think the Leggionarre was better than that. (starwars guy getting hit by smileys)

eh...were talkin bout the movies.

Not really. All Lucas did wash mesh a bunch of existing ideas, stories, and characters, and make an ending. Star Wars was never planned to be a trilogy.



..and that has what to do with Lucas "not having anything to work with", when all he did was throw a bunch of inspirations in a blender and make a big story out of it?

They both had material to base their works on. Lucas' vision was just more grand and original.

its harder than u think



i totally agree

Alls I was saying is that these guys had AMPLE outside influence for the basis of their movies. The overall influence and ingenuity of "Star Wars" is untouchable.

"Lord of the Rings" is just the epic movie that Hollywood was way overdue for. It's not going to influence any other fantasy movies to come, really, other than just inspiring any predecessors to reach higher, quality wise. But given the costuming, direction, script, etc..LOTR is equally as hard to top, and these two movies honestly cannot be compared fairly.

i agree with u completely, well said

First off. The All-Time Box Office that is listed on IMDb is not acurate. They have not adjusted by Inflation. This is a list I found that had IMDb's list but then listed movies adjusted at...
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Top_grossing_movies#Highest-grossing_adjusted_for_inflation

It lists the top movies adjusted as...
1. Gone with the Wind
2. Star Wars ANH
3. Titanic
4. Jaws
5. E.T.
. . .
14. The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring

Since Titanic was listed as being #1 but is only #3 when adjusted for inflation you can say that Star Wars a New Hope actually made more money then LORT - Return. The IMDb list had Titanic above LOTR Return of the King but now it is below Star Wars ANH.

Granted this list was compiled in 2002 so it is missing Return of the King and 2 Towers but it still shows that the first list misses important data.

As for my opinion. Much of what they did in LOTR was made possible from technology that came from Lucas and Star Wars. LOTR is a great story but it just can't compare to the Star Wars series.

im not talking about originality (cos SW is OG Lucas) im just sayin the way they delievered it onto screen is better. Jackson & his writing team changed a few things in order to transfer it from pages on a book to film. some where scruitinised (elves at healms deep) and some were understandable (Faramir wanted the ring so that he could get his father's approval of him. plus it took away from its mystic if Faramir bluntly refuses the ring that could enslave the whole world)

and tell me this, if u watch ESB, ROTJ or AOTC for the first time and didnt know nuthin about SW you would think it'll work as a stand alone movie? ofcourse not. you need the whole trilogy to understand the full story.

another thing: The SW is meant to be viewed all at once to get full understanding of the characters and story thus making it seem like 1 movie. however you view the SW movies now and there's no flow. LOTR is one story cut into 3 parts, but the key was it was made all in one go making it seem like a continuation of the previous movie.

couldnt agree with you more. Good job.

Compare Troy (cost approx. $200 million to make) and LOTR ($300 million to make) and you'll find there's a big difference. The illiad has the greatest war story but they f**ked it up when they made a movie IMO that would appeal directly to young girls/ladies.

No.....not really. I haven't lost all respect for hobbits....just people who think Simmons could beat Frodo. Shame, young man, shame

If you guys are going to ignore my posts then I'm going to keep shouting louder, Lucas could do whatever he wanted to because he was starting with nothing. PJ on the other hand had the much more difficult task of making a book that people had been saying was impossible to film into something anyone could enjoy.

SO STOP SAYING "ALL JACKSON HAD TO DO..." because its bull.



I see you have the crystal ball now, I did ask to borrow it first.



Afraid not. They developed there own special effects as they were going along. If that was true why was Jar Jar Binks so fake. Gollum is possibly the first CGI character that fully interacts with real actors thats actually believable, if you think that isn't groundbreaking then your a moron.

Star Wars takes the taco.

LOTR is great but Lucas' movies are pure magic. He might have used LOTR as inspiration but my man took it to another level. Wizards, spaceships, laser swords, giant monsters, and...and...TWINS!

This is becoming quite a heated argument so i'm going to stick my oar in at this point.

It's all very well to say Lucas created Star Wars out of nothing but the fact is Star Wars was, at one point, so close to the Hidden Fortress that Lucas had to look into acquiring the rights to it. In the end he didn't need to because; see next point.

Lucas, while he wrote the first draft employed a number of writers to to produce his screenplay and his novelisation not only for ANH but for ESB and ROTJ. It was these writers that solved alot of the issues that meant he almost had to licence Kurasowas film.

Lastly, Star Wars ANH is basically your average fairy tale set in space. I'm not knocking the movie, infact the Original Trilogy is magical but don't ask me for an opinion on the new stuff, you might not like my answer.

Anyone wanting a little more info on the creative process behind the Star Wars legend should check this book http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0006530818.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

It's really good and it gives alot of juicy information that you'll never get out of Lucas or his company.

As for Peter Jackson, while its agreed he's had source material to work from, the task was just as daunting as if he was making a movie from scratch. Not only did it require substantial editing so it could actually fit it into 3 movies, there was also the design work and as someone said before the special effects were created on the fly. While Yoda in AOTC is impressive, he's nowhere near as complex as Gollum.

Also, I don't know where some people are getting the idea that the world of LOTR is small in comparison to Star Wars. Tolkien spent most his LIFE creating that world and his son has continued to add to it. Anyone who's read the books would know that not only is there plenty of history pre LOTR but there's also quite a bit of information to tell you what happened AFTER. Add to that feat the creation of a Language and it becomes an even bigger accomplishment; to say that the 25 or so books of the EUSW is bigger in scope and concept is lunacy.

And one final point, Lucas doesn't consider any of the EU stuff canon. So in that sense, it might as well not exist.

The LOTR world is small compared to Star Wars, if you think Middle Earth is bigger than a galaxy, that's your own problem.

we were talking about the original trilogy, which was groundbreaking in effects, yes lotr came up with massive, but gollum being real was more to do with the actor than anything else.

thats what most people that dont like that one seem to hate it for,with me its because of two main reasons. 1.Except for Lando,the acting was not believeable like it was in the first two films from the main characters,2.that whole thing of Leia and Luke becoming brothers and sisters at the end was so corny and stupid.That pretty much ruined the whole thing for me right there.

Hmm so every planet in the galaxy is mentioned in Star Wars is it? I'm surprised you have had the time to keep up with it all.

There were many CGI characters made before LOTR so it wasn't like they were the first to do that, so again, how was that revolutionary?

Yeah, I didn't like either of the things you mentioned and, but having the best space battle out of all the Star Wars movies, and having that final battle between Father and son still saved it for me and really liked it. Having Ewoks was another example of being limited by the technology back then. It was not possible to have Wookies instead, because they could not have gotten that many seven ft. guys to wear the Wookie costumes, just wasn't possible. But now, in Ep III, since they have the technology, they can just make the wookies digital and it won't be a problem. I think Lucas is probably having Wookies in Ep. III since he wasn't able to in ROTJ.

He had Wookiee senators in Episode 1 in the Galactic Senate, and there are plenty of archives photos of multiple wookies.Technology has absolutely nothing to do with it, and if he could find 100 small people to fill the roles of Ewoks in ROTJ, he could find men for the Wookiee roles, and he has for Episode 3, for the Kashyyk scenes.

It has everything to do with it. He only has about 10 guys in Wookie suits, the rest are all CGI, which they couldn't do for ROTJ. Yes they had wookie senators in EP 1, but they didn't have 100 like they would've needed for ROTJ. Lucas even said this in the commentary, that he had to design the story around the technology that was available, so that he didn't get to go everywhere or see everything he had wanted in the story.

You made it sound as if the costuming had something to do with the technology, which it didn't. Digital wookiees are bad news, and totally unncessary, given the human element is readily available.

If you could find 100 7 ft. tall guys who were agile enough to perform the scene, then yes it would be possible, but seeing as that would be very hard, it's not really possible. There aren't even 100 7 ft. tall players in the NBA, which has some of the most athletic tall people in the world, so I think it would be very hard to find a 100 just to do a small part in a movie.

Actually Massive is what lets them have armies of thousands on the screen, acting independantly.

I don't think Massive had anything to do with Gollum.

My point was that Gollum is the most realistic and believable CGI character.

Of course Star Wars was groundbreaking it was made when I was a kid, when my brothers had to programme their own games, and the games they did programme were neolithic compared to the games they have now.

But that doesn't mean LOTR didn't do anything groundbreaking either, I'm sorry but if you believe there have been CGI characters as believable and realistic as Gollum, then I'd like proof. Watch the scene in ROTK where Gollum is talking in his sleep... they do a close up of Gollum, his skin is so detailed and realistic its unbelievable.



A world as in history, which any real world has to have, you can go as far back in LOTR history as you like, right back to creation, this isn't about the actual size of the world, its about the world itself and the characters and events in that world.



We're talking believability here, we're talking about how realistic the character is, Gollum had to be believable because you have to react to him the way you would a real actor, but what we're looking at on screen is computer generated and CGI characters have never been believable enough to take seriously, until Gollum.

I like them both but if I had to choose then LOTR

god that would take me awhile to choose cuz both are good as each othe

Star Wars>Lord Of The Rings

I am basing this on the Lord of the Rings Films as I have not read the books. I love all three of Star Wars films and I cant say the same for LOTR. I loved the first LOTR and TTT was good too but ROTK was like watching the end half of TTT twice but with little differences on how the huge battle(s) took place. If I had to choose between LOTR and SW it will definitely be SW by a long shot but my favorite films of all time are The Matrix Films.

i didn't say it did, i said that the graphics for gollum had been done before. U can have life like graphics as much as you want, without serkis' performance gollum would'nt have seemed real. Gollum's looks were not groundbreaking, spirits within was gollums precursor, the graphical quality was not created by lotr, it was expanded upon, thats not groundbreaking.

really? Ive never EVER heard of them. And have they been going strong over 20 years now? Internationally and on the same size and scope as the SW ones? Somehow I doubt that.



I never said my experience spoke for everyone. What I said was "many of us have read it and forgotten about it". Many does not = everyone. If you are going to respond to a quote I make please dont twist the quote. And whether you choose to accept it or not EVERYONE has a point. So saying someones opinion is pointless is well.......rude and speaks volumes to me about your maturity level.



Whether a person likes SW or LOTR is based on their personal likes and dislikes, but I'd be willing to bet that in the US anyway if you lined people up the SW fanbase would overwhelm the LOTR fan base.

peter jackson said if george lucas did'nt event the digital tech stuff that he would'nt have been able to make lotr.But I have to say I love both trilogys they are amazing to watch and we should be glad that their are movies like this to watch for now may ring be withyou.

indeed ...

Tim=wise one.

Very true

i go with lotr, simply because i read the books and the movies were as amazing as my first time reading the books

i like the first star wars trilogy, this new one sucks imo, i love cgi but lucas goes way too overboard with it and it takes away from the film for me....im at least hoping that the swords made out of a metal that could stop a lightsaber arent introduced in the last (hopefully the last) movie

i really dont think gollum was so real just because of andy serkis, it's 50/50, that was the best cg i've seen in a movie yet, and serkis did a great job depicting the character which i dont think much other people can do

Jedi Priestess: "Many of us read the whole LOTR stuff back in high school and then pretty much forgot about it until the movies came out. SW on the hand sticks with ya forever."

Me: "Take it from another old woman, I've been a LOTR fan for about twenty years, so has my sister, my mum has been one for at the very least thirty years. So just because your experience is that you read LOTR once and then forgot about it, it does NOT speak for everyone, not even close... don't use your own limited experience to draw conclusions about something like LOTR... it has been popular for fifty years, LOTR stays with most people for life... your point is well... pointless because its based on nothing at all, how could that possibly be true when its been popular for so long."

Jedi Priestess: "I never said my experience spoke for everyone. What I said was "many of us have read it and forgotten about it". Many does not = everyone. If you are going to respond to a quote I make please dont twist the quote. And whether you choose to accept it or not EVERYONE has a point. So saying someones opinion is pointless is well.......rude and speaks volumes to me about your maturity level."

What I took issue with was this: "SW on the hand sticks with ya forever", which strongly implies that you think the inverse is true for LOTR. When I know that precisely the opposite is true. LOTR sticks with you for life, too. Christopher Lee has been reading LOTR once a year, every year for something like 50 years.

I wasn't being rude I was pointing out that I believed that your point was pointless because it makes no sense, it wasn't based on fact, LOTR sticks with you for life too... in fact there is more evidence that LOTR sticks with you for life than Star Wars, because LOTR has been around for a lot longer.

I did NOT say that your opinion was pointless.

I said: "your point is well... pointless"

Do not, put words in my mouth.

Your calling me rude and saying I twisted your quote, then you do exactly what you've just accused me of doing, and I didn't even do what you accused me of doing in the first place. rolleyes1

Jedi Priestess: "I dont recall there being tons of LOTR coventions?"

Me: "There are plenty of LOTR conventions, believe me."

Jedi Priestess: "really? Ive never EVER heard of them. And have they been going strong over 20 years now? Internationally and on the same size and scope as the SW ones? Somehow I doubt that."

I don't recall saying anything that even approaches the comment you just made, I simply said that there were plenty, that simply implies that there are enough LOTR conventions as opposed to your claim that there aren't tons of them. I am simply pointing out that there are enough.

Jedi Priestess: "Whether a person likes SW or LOTR is based on their personal likes and dislikes, but I'd be willing to bet that in the US anyway if you lined people up the SW fanbase would overwhelm the LOTR fan base."

Why even make this point? You can't prove its true and I can't prove it isn't true. So until I see this demonstrated I have no reason to believe that this is the case.

Also when did this become a popularity contest, if you're going to attempt to use that as proof of Star Wars supposed superiority then I will be forced to use those things at my disposal: 11 oscars, second only to the bible in book sales, 'Screen Actors Guild' Award for best ensemble cast and so on...

BTW I know two people, one a 36 year old man and the other a 16 year old kid who used to be Star Wars fans who now prefer LOTR. What does that prove? Nothing. Just like your 'I bet the SW fanbase would overwhelm LOTR fanbase' comment, because neither prove anything.

this is a pretty stupid debate. I love'em both. the saga and the trilogy are my favorite types of movies. I get to jump into any one of them and have hours of entertainment. This is all opinion based so who cares which one is better. Star wars is awsome, Lord of the Rings is amazing, Matrix is cool, and Indiana Jones and Back to the Future are classics.

theres been thousands of LOTR conventions

lucas making star wars in itself was inspired by LOTR, it all has a connection and thats the way things evolutionize from everything else

I Love LotR
but it in no way comes close to the effect star wars had.

After all, nobody reads the silmarillion just to see sauron again

People watch the PT looking for the smallest hint of vader, he had imo the biggest impact any character has had.

I think Steve Mcqueen from the great escape should battle vader

yeah, for some people vader had a big impact, for me vader left my mind as soon as i turned off the vcr, especially when they show him at the end and he's just some bald fat guy

for me thumb wars made more of an impact, it was so damn funny heheh

There has never been a better villain than vader, not even skeletor

whoa...i dont know about that, i mean its skeletor he has a crazy skeleton face and could still talk without his lips!!....as opposed to the menacing fat bald man with nasal problems

yeah but skeletor couldnt beat Heman
I mean come on, a ponse in tight pants, thats all heman is

Vader would kill them all.

vader is one of the greatest screen baddies ever, hes up there with hannibal and norman bates, the guy rocks, and nasal problems dont mean shit when he can kill u just by thinking it.

heman has rippling muscles and a painfully legendary sword lol, sure vader has all the mind stuff, but then why didnt he just kill luke by just thinking it....or han solo....or the princess.........or chewbacca, because they needed a cool ending lol, im pretty sure luke had some "jedi mind block" for all his friends or some bullsh!t

there's another Havoc?


and daronisgod there is nothing to be gained by arguing this subject anymore, you think LOTR is better and I think SW is better pretty much end of story. It's a matter of personal preference.

there is another havoc? lol

I hope that by now you guys saw the Special edition of the original Star Wars triology dvd set. If you have you'll notice that Peter Jackson (in the documentary menu) himself said that he admires the work of Lucas. Almost to the point of admitting that it was inspirational to him.

But! Peter Jackson was referring to the Star Wars of 77 and 83. None of that added stuff in the new edition of Star Wars. Which kinda shows that Lucas vision doesn't quite fit with everyone. Some of us like the way Star Wars originally was and it should stay that way. All these things that Lucas is adding to the original trilogy aren't that bad........but aren't that good either.

peter jackson made his movie after a book that inspired lucas to make star wars, which both inspired peter jackson to make the movies after the book, so theres not really anything to prove, it all basically snowballed from one thing to another and its all what it is now

Your pointing to the inspiration behind the story. The inspiration I was referring to was the one Peter Jackson acknowledges....which is in the visuals of filmaking. And not only Peter Jackson, but also Ridley Scott and James Cameron said it that it was the visuals of Star Wars that inspired them.

Yes, I agree that Lucas did took his inspiration from mythological figures but he didn't mention anything about Tolkien. He does refer to Beowulf and Camelot.

It wasnt the lotr book that inspired PJ

He saw Ralph Bakshis LotR, wanted to be a director some day, ran out and bought lotr trilogy with a bakshi film still on the cover

Now that I definately agree with.

Indeed

PJ was inspired by LOTR, which is why he made the movie, as is any movie made after a book....its an inspiration to put it on film and show it to people who probably never even heard of it, camelot and beowulf were inspirations for tolkien when he made the lotr trilogy, and if you refer to those two books as inspiration to making a movie, there is no doubt that lotr would be another

Ralph Bakshi's lotr, is still made after lotr the book so you really arent proving a point

I'm just glad we have them both. I don't think anybody around here can argue with that. We are argueing about apples and oranges here. And I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter Jackson thinks what Lucas is doing now sucks, and he thinks it is wrong. You shouldn't speak for somebody you don't know. Besides Star Wars has changed for better or for worse, I don't know. Let future generations decide that. Because the only people who seem to hate the prequels and changes to star wars are pretty much coming from a certain age demographic for the most part (no offense JP). Who cares which one is better. Now if you want to compare LOTR to the matrix, LOTR hands down.

cant complain with that

OB1 knows what he's saying

ORIGINAL STAR WARS, with mark hammel, and the hot chick with the huge knockers and those things in her hair, and harrison ford, greatest. SCREW THAT NEW CRAP

I Love them both, i grew up watching Star Wars but LOTR blew me away and whileill always love SW i think the new stuff fell short and it was kinda disapointed and LOTR is perfect from start to finish, the new SW episodes kinda messed up the whole saga for me in the sense that i see them as flaws.

Lord of the Rings.

STAR WARS IS THE BEST IT HAS THE NEW ONE WHICH IS COMING OUT ITS GOING TO GO AND HIT THE GROUND TRUST ME STAR WARS IS DEFINETLY THE BEST!!!

edited

SO STAR WARS IS THE BEST I SEE

my god. no need to b itch at everyone. ..also no need to use 3 posts to d o it. you already said ur opinion and no ones challenging you

Don't call people names.