Star Wars vs LORT lets finish it!!!!

Did i say i was comparing them, NOPE.

Iam creating the thread because they are two very popualr film sagas and they are always brought together in discussions, saying which one is better.

star wars is just barely my favorite science fiction over star trek.

lotr is my favorite fantasy.

lotr is written a lot better. i mean the guy came up with 5 complete languages and everything. star wars is great, but lotr is well lotr. can't really compete with that.

star wars

Lord of the rings.

Star wars is boring IMO.

Ok serisouly lets finish this discussion on Gametrailers now about Star Wars and LOTR and which one is better???.
I personally think that Star Wars is better and for a couple of reason:
1. The CGI is just flat out better all the special effects are fantasic and look so real and the original one's basically made the special effects that we watch today.
2.The story is fantasic and is a brilliant origianl story and the good guys dont always win in Star Wars.
3.The characters are so real, you invest so much time in the characters, that if something tradgic or massive happened then you feel sad about it.
4.More action, about 70% of the LOTR is walking about boreing dialogue. I know there are obvisouly some actions scenes but mostly just boreing walking.
5.There is actually a villian in Star Wars, i dont mean to sound stupid BUT Star Wars actaully has villians in at that you actually know about, like big main ones like The Emperor and Darth Vader.
LOTR doesnt have a main villian the main villian is the ring which i think is really weak and stupid also, sure there are some villians in it but none of them actually stand out as villians.

So what does everybody think??. Lets not start another fight, lets just discuss them 2 and what is your faviorte??.
Also in the poll that is there vote for your faviorte.mike_efc

In answer to your points:

1. The CGI is much much better in the LotR films.
2. Your seriously saying the Star Wars story is better than LotR? A story Tolkien basically spent his whole life on. wow...
3. The charcters are real to me in LotR. I actually cried at the end of the 3rd film when frodo left. I'm a 19 year old male.
4. The action scenes are amzing in LotR. So are the walking scenes. :)
5. There is a villain in LotR. In fact there's 3. Gollum, Sauron and Saruman. I suppose you could include the ring too.

I'm gonna have to say Star Wars. I fell asleep in the middle of LOTR.kingdre

Same. TC, what the hell is LORT? :P

Lord of the Rings. It was truly elaborated by J.R.R. Tolkien with the help of nobody but his sole imagination, he managed to create a whole new world in just a number of books.

they have nothing in common,so you can't compare them. /threadteh_destroyer

AMEN.

But all you need is Clerks 2 to know the reasons why "there is only one Return, and it aint Of the King, its Of the JEDI". One of the best and funniest movie scenes out there for nerds.

I watched lotr with my friend, it seemed like half the movie they were just walking. SW wins.

Plus, star wars games are usually more fun than lotr games.

[QUOTE="teh_destroyer"]they have nothing in common,so you can't compare them. /threadInsomniacZombie

AMEN.

But all you need is Clerks 2 to know the reasons why "there is only one Return, and it aint Of the King, its Of the JEDI". One of the best and funniest movie scenes out there for nerds.

Clerks > Clerks II

I'm going with Lord of the Rings.

Both trilogies have awesome first and second chapters. However, when it comes to the third chapter, it's not even close. Return of the King DESTROYS Return of the Jedi.

first it's spelt LOTR not LORT, the LOTR books are great and have a great background, they happen in a world not just an area surrounding the storyline like star wars does, but if you're talking about films neither is very good, neither of them seem to have any depth and are just lead ups to action scenesmarkop2003

'4.More action, about 70% of the LOTR is walking about boreing dialogue. I know there are obvisouly some actions scenes but mostly just boreing walking.' As well as revealing that you have the attention span of a schizophrenic goldfish, you also show that you are mostly concerned with action. LOTR isn't all about action, which is why you may have found it 'boreing'. ferretzor

:lol:

I would have said the same thing but whenever I say something that might slightly offend someone I get moderated.

[QUOTE="mike_efc"]Ok serisouly lets finish this discussion on Gametrailers now about Star Wars and LOTR and which one is better???.
I personally think that Star Wars is better and for a couple of reason:
1. The CGI is just flat out better all the special effects are fantasic and look so real and the original one's basically made the special effects that we watch today.
2.The story is fantasic and is a brilliant origianl story and the good guys dont always win in Star Wars.
3.The characters are so real, you invest so much time in the characters, that if something tradgic or massive happened then you feel sad about it.
4.More action, about 70% of the LOTR is walking about boreing dialogue. I know there are obvisouly some actions scenes but mostly just boreing walking.
5.There is actually a villian in Star Wars, i dont mean to sound stupid BUT Star Wars actaully has villians in at that you actually know about, like big main ones like The Emperor and Darth Vader.
LOTR doesnt have a main villian the main villian is the ring which i think is really weak and stupid also, sure there are some villians in it but none of them actually stand out as villians.

So what does everybody think??. Lets not start another fight, lets just discuss them 2 and what is your faviorte??.
Also in the poll that is there vote for your faviorte.ColdRush88

In answer to your points:

1. The CGI is much much better in the LotR films.
2. Your seriously saying the Star Wars story is better than LotR? A story Tolkien basically spent his whole life on. wow...
3. The charcters are real to me in LotR. I actually cried at the end of the 3rd film when frodo left. I'm a 19 year old male.
4. The action scenes are amzing in LotR. So are the walking scenes. :)
5. There is a villain in LotR. In fact there's 3. Gollum, Sauron and Saruman. I suppose you could include the ring too.

You really should read the LotR books.

It's hard to actually see LOTR's brilliance without reading the books. This is why people tend to pick SW over LOTR I think. The CGI in the Star Wars saga was forced (IMO). The CGI in LOTR on the other hand was used only when it needed to be which ultimately made the use of it better. You've definitely reached your goal as a director in a movie if you've used CGI in such a way to where it blended and wasn't noticed. Peter Jackson definitely reached that goal. You probably could've shot the entire SW series on a green screen and it wouldn't of made a difference. And don't get me started on the dialogue in SW. Man is it horrible. It was just painful to sit through. In LOTR though, the speaking parts with long conversations actually helped the film. They were cleverly thought out and wonderfully executed. Of course it helped to have awesome source material, but still, you gotta give credit to the writers. There's a reason the movies won oscars for best screen adaptations. In fact, the third film won 11 Oscars all together, including Best picture. It won every oscar it was nominated for. Very few other films won that many. The ones that come to mind right away are Titanic, Ben-Hur, and Gone With The Wind. I don't need to remind anyone how awesome those films are. The LOTR series as a whole won 17 Oscars. How many did SW win? The new trilogy didn't win any. The old won 9. So, let's compare. Three LOTR films spanning 2001-2003, won 17 oscars. Six SW films spanning 1977-2005, won 9 oscars and none being received after 1983. I don't think I have to explain myself anymore. The Lord of the RIngs is clearly the better saga, case closed.8)

It's hard to actually see LOTR's brilliance without reading the books. This is why people tend to pick SW over LOTR I think. The CGI in the Star Wars saga was forced (IMO). The CGI in LOTR on the other hand was used only when it needed to be which ultimately made the use of it better. You've definitely reached your goal as a director in a movie if you've used CGI in such a way to where it blended and wasn't noticed. Peter Jackson definitely reached that goal. You probably could've shot the entire SW series on a green screen and it wouldn't of made a difference. And don't get me started on the dialogue in SW. Man is it horrible. It was just painful to sit through. In LOTR though, the speaking parts with long conversations actually helped the film. They were cleverly thought out and wonderfully executed. Of course it helped to have awesome source material, but still, you gotta give credit to the writers. There's a reason the movies won oscars for best screen adaptations. In fact, the third film won 11 Oscars all together, including Best picture. It won every oscar it was nominated for. Very few other films won that many. The ones that come to mind right away are Titanic, Ben-Hur, and Gone With The Wind. I don't need to remind anyone how awesome those films are. The LOTR series as a whole won 17 Oscars. How many did SW win? The new trilogy didn't win any. The old won 9. So, let's compare. Three LOTR films spanning 2001-2003, won 17 oscars. Six SW films spanning 1977-2005, won 9 oscars and none being received after 1983. I don't think I have to explain myself anymore. The Lord of the RIngs is clearly the better saga, case closed.8)

KH-mixerX

Perfectly said. :)

The LotR films also gave books a huge new audience boost.

If we are only factoring in the films then LOTR wins with complete ease.

But, factor the extended universe of star wars and you have a much closer comparison.

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

It's hard to actually see LOTR's brilliance without reading the books. This is why people tend to pick SW over LOTR I think. The CGI in the Star Wars saga was forced (IMO). The CGI in LOTR on the other hand was used only when it needed to be which ultimately made the use of it better. You've definitely reached your goal as a director in a movie if you've used CGI in such a way to where it blended and wasn't noticed. Peter Jackson definitely reached that goal. You probably could've shot the entire SW series on a green screen and it wouldn't of made a difference. And don't get me started on the dialogue in SW. Man is it horrible. It was just painful to sit through. In LOTR though, the speaking parts with long conversations actually helped the film. They were cleverly thought out and wonderfully executed. Of course it helped to have awesome source material, but still, you gotta give credit to the writers. There's a reason the movies won oscars for best screen adaptations. In fact, the third film won 11 Oscars all together, including Best picture. It won every oscar it was nominated for. Very few other films won that many. The ones that come to mind right away are Titanic, Ben-Hur, and Gone With The Wind. I don't need to remind anyone how awesome those films are. The LOTR series as a whole won 17 Oscars. How many did SW win? The new trilogy didn't win any. The old won 9. So, let's compare. Three LOTR films spanning 2001-2003, won 17 oscars. Six SW films spanning 1977-2005, won 9 oscars and none being received after 1983. I don't think I have to explain myself anymore. The Lord of the RIngs is clearly the better saga, case closed.8)

ColdRush88

Perfectly said. :)

The LotR films also gave books a huge new audience boost.

This guy.. Is God.

The difference between Star Wars and LOTR is Star Wars holds up after 30 years, LOTR, to me, barely holds up after 5. And I'm no Star Wars fanboy, not by a long-shot.

I'd had enough of overly melodramatic Elijah Wood by 'fellowship'.

I was looking forward to Jackson's The Lovely Bones adaptation before he cast Mark Whalberg...

The difference between Star Wars and LOTR is Star Wars holds up after 30 years, LOTR, to me, barely holds up after 5. And I'm no Star Wars fanboy, not by a long-shot.

I'd had enough of overly melodramatic Elijah Wood by 'fellowship'.

I was looking forward to Jackson's The Lovely Bones adaptation before he cast Mark Whalberg...

MedicMike66

You must be forgetting then the LotR has held up for more than 50 years. :)

[QUOTE="MedicMike66"]

The difference between Star Wars and LOTR is Star Wars holds up after 30 years, LOTR, to me, barely holds up after 5. And I'm no Star Wars fanboy, not by a long-shot.

I'd had enough of overly melodramatic Elijah Wood by 'fellowship'.

I was looking forward to Jackson's The Lovely Bones adaptation before he cast Mark Whalberg...

ColdRush88

You must be forgetting then the LotR has held up for more than 50 years. :)

Film and books are two completely different mediums.

No doubt the book has stood the test of time. The movies came out in the early '00s...

The older star wars movies while being some of my favorite of all time were undeniably bad movies. They gained such a following by being a unique offering that came out at the right time.

The new star wars movies were imo terrible. Ep3 is the only one that has even a remote trace of redeeming quality. Had the older movies not etched such a following in stone the prequals would have been movies that opened in the 4th or 5th spot in the box office and would be quickly forgotten.

LOTR were excellently written, casted, edited and produced. They are literally dripping with copius amounts of amazing cinematic ability.

I love LOTR in the same way that i love SW and enjoy them equally but as a fan who REALLY watches both its impossible to deny that LOTR were the better done movies.

[QUOTE="ColdRush88"][QUOTE="MedicMike66"]

The difference between Star Wars and LOTR is Star Wars holds up after 30 years, LOTR, to me, barely holds up after 5. And I'm no Star Wars fanboy, not by a long-shot.

I'd had enough of overly melodramatic Elijah Wood by 'fellowship'.

I was looking forward to Jackson's The Lovely Bones adaptation before he cast Mark Whalberg...

MedicMike66

You must be forgetting then the LotR has held up for more than 50 years. :)

Film and books are two completely different mediums.

No doubt the book has stood the test of time. The movies came out in the early '00s...

Were you alive all those years when the books came out?