I vote Lord of the Rings, not only because I love those movies, but because what's behind them is a seperate world that Tolkein went through the trouble of making, that's as detailed as our world. Harry Potter and Star Wars aren't like that. They're just stories that their authors make up as they go along.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
I see....double post......ignore my reply in the other thread then.Let's see here........um.......Star Wars....
when it comes to fanboy geekdom, Star Wars can't be messed with. The movie has had a massive main-stream following for 30 years...........where as the other two flicks are some johnny come lately magic kiddie shit (HP) and Dungeons and Dragons knock off (LotR).....
LotRs is a D&D knock off? Wouldn't it be the other way round?
Anyway a close call between SW (original trilogy) and LotR. Star Wars is docked points for the prequels and the Ewoks (yes, I can hold a grudge.) To close to call in the end.
Harry Potter films don't come close in the end.
Lord of the Rings by a mile. The problem with Star Wars is that there a quite a few things that even the die hard Star Wars fan boys more or less dislike (Jar Jar, the uninspired "Phantom Menace", the casting of Hayden, the Ewoks...).
I also want to mention the fact that Lucas isn't half the director that Peter Jackson is.
Bottom line is : a lot of Star Wars stuff are still being heavily debated, Lord of the Rings doesn't have that problem, or at least not in the same way.
Lord of the Rings also has better movie structure than Star Wars : it's in fact one movie, divided in three parts. Last but not least, it was a very risky project : what are the chances the audience will watch a 10 hour long fantasy movie with God knows how many characters, countries, languages and so on?
George Lucas played it very safe : he knew Darth Vader was very popular, so he makes three movies about Darth Vader. How creative.
Originally posted by who?-kid
Lord of the Rings by a mile. The problem with Star Wars is that there a quite a few things that even the die hard Star Wars fan boys more or less dislike (Jar Jar, the uninspired "Phantom Menace", the casting of Hayden, the Ewoks...).
There are numerous problems with Episodes 1, 2, and 3. 4, 5, and 6, however, didnt have nearly as many. With the exception, I will admit, of the Ewoks.
Originally posted by who?-kid
I also want to mention the fact that Lucas isn't half the director that Peter Jackson is.
Yes he is. Lucas may hve lost his vision over the years, but that doesnt make him any less of a director. Why do you think so in the frist place?
Originally posted by who?-kid
Bottom line is : a lot of Star Wars stuff are still being heavily debated, Lord of the Rings doesn't have that problem, or at least not in the same way.
Debating what, exactly? As if LOTR isn't?
Originally posted by who?-kid
Lord of the Rings also has better movie structure than Star Wars : it's in fact one movie, divided in three parts. Last but not least, it was a very risky project : what are the chances the audience will watch a 10 hour long fantasy movie with God knows how many characters, countries, languages and so on?
Star Wars is, essentialy. the very same thing. Think of it as a 6 part "Space Opera". LOTR is dissected the same way, except that its "Wizards and Warriors" instead of "Space and Science". And there were many, many languages withing the Star Wars universe. The same with all the backstories of different characters and history therein.
Originally posted by who?-kid
George Lucas played it very safe : he knew Darth Vader was very popular, so he makes three movies about Darth Vader. How creative.
Lucas knew that he was making a great series of moves that were original, inventive, and visionary. How creative, indeed. Jackson made three movies that were 3+ hours each about midgets, rings, and swordfights.
Originally posted by Impediment
Yes he is. Lucas may hve lost his vision over the years, but that doesnt make him any less of a director. Why do you think so in the frist place?
For example : Fellowship of the Ring, the long sequence of the camera following the moth, than visiting Gandalf, and than jumping into the deep of Isengard. Take your DVD, look at it and judge for yourself, but that's an awesome scene.
George Lucas does NOT have those kinds of scenes : spectacular yes, great FX no problem, but he isn't exactly a cam wizard.
I don't want to start another debate, but a lot of people consider The Empire Strikes Back as the best Star Wars movie. I agree with them. It wasn't directed by George Lucas however...
Lucas lost it after A New Hope. That was a film by a visionary filmmaker. Anything he's done since (including Jedi) seems to have been fueled by money and the delusion the fans give him that he is still an excellent director.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's a terrible director... not even a bad one. But he's not half the director he was when he made A New Hope, THX and American Graffiti.
That said, Star Wars still gets my vote... by miles. The story, the characters, the locations, the visuals, the excitement, the fun... By far, the Original Trilogy is the greatest trilogy ever made.
Originally posted by who?-kid
Lord of the Rings also has better movie structure than Star Wars : it's in fact one movie, divided in three parts.
Originally posted by who?-kid
George Lucas played it very safe : he knew Darth Vader was very popular, so he makes three movies about Darth Vader. How creative.
And as for Harry Potter... I've fallen asleep through every one I've tried to watch... That can't be a good thing.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
I see....double post......ignore my reply in the other thread then.Let's see here........um.......Star Wars....
when it comes to fanboy geekdom, Star Wars can't be messed with. The movie has had a massive main-stream following for 30 years...........where as the other two flicks are some johnny come lately magic kiddie shit (HP) and Dungeons and Dragons knock off (LotR).....
Actually the inspiration for the entire franchise of dungeons and dragons pretty much came from the writings of J.R. Tolkien....
LOTR came way before gary gygax.
I respect both Peter Jackson and George Lucas greatly. And I think, for the most part, they both did wonderful jobs. Lucas had his screw-ups, but I can forgive him, because I definitely think that what we got (which was an awesome Sci-Fi saga) was worth the problems that came along with it. I respect Lucas because he created Star Wars and everything along with it, such as characters, planets, species, technology and so on. That takes some serious imagination. Peter Jackson didn't create Lord of the Rings, but that almost makes for a harder time making the movies, because he needs to translate a beloved story onto the screen, and not **** it up, which he didn't. I think he did an amazing job. Star Wars wins by a tiny bit, for me.