Compare the Lotr trilogy to the Ot Star Wars film trilogy

Originally posted by Darth Thor
The massive pop culture effect and popularity of the OT has never been replicated by another trilogy.

What caught me about this part of your comment, Darth, is the far-reaching effects that the Star Wars OT had on media itself: so much influencing on how to do a shared universe amongst several different forms of media, implementing marketing and merchandising, effects on - for lack of a better term, forgive me - nerd and fanboy culture. Shoot, there's lots of stuff that wouldn't have been written, filmed, or even invented had Star Wars not influenced people to make something in media and IRL similar to what they watched on the silver screen. Buddies Spielberg and Lucas practically started the summer blockbuster trend (Spielberg with Jaws, yes, but Star Wars is the prototypical tentpole film series).

However, I'm with Backfire on why I prefer LotR in about every way. Star Wars unquestionably has a better primary antagonist in Vader, who is one of the strongest characters of fiction for all the times vs some really good minor villains and a good big bad in Sauron, and the film scores can be argued, but besides that, LotR is the better trilogy in storytelling, cinematography, visuals and audio effects, acting, etc. by a Shire-country mile. And yes, it's because Peter Jackson is a far better filmmaker than George Lucas and his crew had almost 30 years on the OT.

Again, though, think about the innovation that Lucas and crew made through the Star Wars films and then Skywalker Sound and Industrial Light and Magic. How much did that influence Weta Digital?

The OT has a King Kong kind of merit in the sense that it changed all film making going forward. You cannot fully ignore it but you cannot define its artistic value solely in that regard.

I definitely preferred the Lord of The Rings trilogy. They’ve aged much more gracefully and the emotions were more genuine; the feeling of camaraderie and adventure was more heartfelt. The acting was also so much more on point in LoTR. One of my biggest gripes of the OT Star Wars trilogy was the acting. It was devoid of substance, it was shallow and hollow. I cringed every time it tried to be serious.

On the point of the Hobbit series, I most definitely prefer the LoTR to that as well for reasons already highlighted.

Originally posted by John Murdoch

Again, though, think about the innovation that Lucas and crew made through the Star Wars films and then Skywalker Sound and Industrial Light and Magic. How much did that influence Weta Digital?

Whats funny is Jackson has gone on record saying the LOTR trilogy would not have been possible if not for TPM. Lucas was the first to sinful on digital characters and backgrounds.

Originally posted by Bentley
The OT has a King Kong kind of merit in the sense that it changed all film making going forward. You cannot fully ignore it but you cannot define its artistic value solely in that regard.

It changed all film for a reason though. It was the story telling. Perfect Heroes journey. Most epic villain in film history, ground breaking special effects, blew audiences mind with Lucas imagination and creativity. A Great Love story, unforgettable characters, the way it mixed up so many different genres so fluidly.

Love both, but have to go with LoTR for several points already mentioned in BF's initial post.

The SW😮T is great, but it's also incredibly cheesy at times, from Luke's bad acting to Ewoks. LoTR to me is more of an adult orientated franchise, than anyone can enjoy, while SW is a children's franchise, that anyone can enjoy. Tolkein's also a better writer than Lucas, so that probably has a lot to do with it as well.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Agreed with BackFire, LotR for the easy win.

Yeah, CGI-less orcs looked much better, there's no denying that.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
It changed all film for a reason though. It was the story telling. Perfect Heroes journey. Most epic villain in film history, ground breaking special effects, blew audiences mind with Lucas imagination and creativity. A Great Love story, unforgettable characters, the way it mixed up so many different genres so fluidly.

I actually agree it's a charming film, even the iffy acting makes it a bit more candid and bright. The storytelling is also arguably superior to LotR -thanks for bringing that up-.

But it's not as if LotR was not very creative itself (the books did change the lore of modern fantasy), that it did not mixed several genres seamlessly and that it didn't have epic characters. People are handing bjs to Vader's villainhood, but Gollum is a pretty awesome character that got crafted for the silverscreen.

Originally posted by Bentley

But it's not as if LotR was not very creative itself (the books did change the lore of modern fantasy), that it did not mixed several genres seamlessly and that it didn't have epic characters. People are handing bjs to Vader's villainhood, but Gollum is a pretty awesome character that got crafted for the silverscreen.

I already made it clear LOTR is of course a massively creative franchise in itself. Of course that's a combination of Tolkien's immense imagination combined with Jackson visualising it for the big screen.

Now don't get me wrong, Jackson puts the likes of JJ Abrams to shame in that department.

But the point is the OT brought all it's imagination to audiences and readers everywhere all on it's own, i.e. straight from the OT. Lucas was basically a combination of a Tolkien and a Jackson in what he did.

Oh Gollum is iconic now doubt. But when it comes to comparing iconic characters and villains, there's really no competition. Pretty much EVERY Lead Hero and Villain from the OT become iconic right away.

That's fair.

However the biggest cultural break the OT achieved was to create the Boba Fett archethype: looks good in toys but goes down like a chump. Heck, SW keeps recycling the same idea of cool characters that live only through secondary canon, it's truly their brand.