Dispise StarWars comparision

[The Marniner]

Just something that has been annoying me, When people compare the Lord of the Rings to Star Wars.

[gimli7410]

in what way though:confused: they are both different things. one is about space the other is aboout medieval/fantasy adventure

[eowyngirl14]

i like star wars. why does it bother you when you compare them? sometimes its just a fun thing for bored people to find ridiculus parallels between movies.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I'm curious, as well. Both are epic fantasies. And I'm also curious as to why you put this in the movie forum, rather than the book...:confused:

[eowyngirl14]

probably cause the star wars trilogy was a movie series befoer it was a book series. and the star wars books are stupid for the most part. or i could be wrong....

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Actually, I think the Star Wars Trilogy books were published c. the same time as the Star Wars movies came out.

And the Lord of the Rings was a book before it was a trilogy of movies. Which it isn't even that. Because those movies ain't Lord of the Rings. :p

[LutraMage]

Can't say I get too het up about it. I loved the first three Star War movies (far better than the Star Wars books) and I'd be happy watching them several times over. But they are different from and (in my opinion) not a patch on LoTR's (both the books and the movies). I don't take offence at any comparisons, particularly as LoTR's will always come off best:D

[Ruinel]

hmmm... I just don't see the similarity between the two.

[Anglorfin]

We call all compare them. But I think he's talking about making comparisons out of ignorance. Or worse yet, thinking that PJ got certain ideas from StarWars ::shudder::

For the record, I have talked to someone that was talking like that.

[Dreran the Green]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Actually, I think the Star Wars Trilogy books were published c. the same time as the Star Wars movies came out.

And the Lord of the Rings was a book before it was a trilogy of movies. Which it isn't even that. Because those movies ain't Lord of the Rings. :p

*Raises fist into air* CURSE YOU PJ!!!! We hatesss you, we hatesss you, we hatessss you forever!!!

I accidentally started comparing the two the last time I watched Star Wars, character wise. I would try and firgure out who each character would be if they were in the Lord of the Rings. It didn't work. But that's what some people do just for fun, or subconciously, like I did. It doesn't bother me.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally posted by gimli7410
in what way though:confused: they are both different things. one is about space the other is aboout medieval/fantasy adventure

i like star wars and the lord of the rings both, it annoys me when people compare which ones better.
-hectorberlioz

[Aeryn Evenstar]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
i like star wars and the lord of the rings both, it annoys me when people compare which ones better.
-hectorberlioz

I agree. I love both Star Wars and LOTR. I don't see how anyone could compare them...other than they are two large franchises.

[gimli7410]

they are both great stories and adventures. so i dont have a more favourite

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Actually, I think the Star Wars Trilogy books were published c. the same time as the Star Wars movies came out.

And the Lord of the Rings was a book before it was a trilogy of movies. Which it isn't even that. Because those movies ain't Lord of the Rings. :p

I remember the first Star Wars movie coming out- the movie definitely came first and the books are just 'novelisations'
like the Star Trek books.

[IronParrot]

Yes, they were just novelizations just like any movie novelizations you see on the shelves.

No, Star Wars is not just "a story about space." It's an important mytho-fantasy creation of its own.

I, too, am sick of comparisons - but I think the root cause is that Star Wars and LOTR are having their own renaissances at the same time, and they are the two defining fantasy sagas of our culture.

There are indeed thematic similarities and connections that would be worth several intelligent essays. (It is a fact that Star Wars was very, very directly influenced by LOTR.) The comparisons I'm complaining about are people - specifically, people who know nothing about filmmaking as an art form - arguing which one is "better" without adequately supporting their points.

This is almost as stupid as "Star Wars vs. Star Trek", about which there was an entire bustling Usenet newsgroup long before most of you even had Internet access, but not quite.

[Lalaith]

The only thing that they have in common is that only one man has created a whole universe, each in his own very special way. George Lucas in movies and Tolkien in books. There is no need to compare them both worlds are really fabulous.

[IronParrot]

Well actually, they have a lot more in common than that, particularly the central motif of the corruption of unrestrained power, etc.

I think it's a very healthy exercise to put them beside each other and discuss them intelligently. It's the "versus" discussions that are totally pointless and just plain stupid.

[Lalaith]

Originally posted by IronParrot
Well actually, they have a lot more in common than that, particularly the central motif of the corruption of unrestrained power, etc.

I think it's a very healthy exercise to put them beside each other and discuss them intelligently. It's the "versus" discussions that are totally pointless and just plain stupid.
Okay, maybe I've been to hasty.

[straight_face]

Illiteracy on this site is horrible, eh?

[legolialis]

Personally i don't realy like star wars(the new one's that is)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by IronParrot
I, too, am sick of comparisons - but I think the root cause is that Star Wars and LOTR are having their own renaissances at the same time, and they are the two defining fantasy sagas of our culture.I agree. There have been many popular movies over the years, but few have captured the imagination of people like Star Wars and Fellowship of the Ring did. The big difference is that Star Wars peaked with its second film, the Empire Strikes Back while the Lord of the Rings will finish with an emotionally charged bang with the best film of the trilogy -- and among the best films of all time.

[IronParrot]

The big difference is that Star Wars peaked with its second film, the Empire Strikes Back while the Lord of the Rings will finish with an emotionally charged bang with the best film of the trilogy -- and among the best films of all time.
I wouldn't say that. Although ESB is the most solid as a film released by itself, taking the entire saga in context, I maintain that the best scenes in Star Wars are the ones in the Death Star throne room in ROTJ, which was an appropriately thrilling climax to the entire saga. The occasional backlash to ROTJ has nothing to do with that, but rather with either the Ewoks or the first half of the film (and for the record, I don't really agree with most of that criticism either).

I think in either case, people are making a huge fallacy by trying to separate cohesive stories and judging them in terms of individual chapters.

[ladyisme]

Hello I am back!! Be afraid be very afraid. ;)

I am not at all surprised that LOTR is being compared to Star Wars, after all there are a lot for things that they have in common. They both have large an loyal fanbases and they have a deffinate historical background that fills them out and makes them feel more like fact than fiction. In both the basic conflict of good vs. evil is the same as is the theeme of temptation. Niether one gets the credit it deserves from critics and both have been hailed as epics. Not to mention that Star Wars and LOTR are about the only two true trilogys out there.

[straight_face]

Star Wars: There is no noise in space.

P.S. I am afraid.

[Insidious Rex]

Well like IronParrot said of course theres a direct comparison. Lucas has said himself that he was heavily influenced by Tolkiens master piece. In fact some movie critics, disapointed by the first film of the second trilogy (Phantom Menace) said Lucas really just failed in an attempt to imitate Lord of the Rings which had been an obsession of his since he was a teenager apparently. and anyway if you really dont think there is much of a comparison just look at the Saruman character in Lord of the Rings and at the Count Doocoo (or whatever) in The star wars second trilogy. They are the same character really. In fact its the same actor! But anyway I agree with the folks that say there is no POINT in pitting one against the other. they are both genuinly different pieces of art. and theres no need to pit them against each other like some kind of boxing match. but then thats human nature. its like comparing the 27 Yankees with the 56 Dodgers or something. Silly. Pointless. But none the less interesting.

[HOBBIT]

Heh, not really IR. You only see the Saruman thing because it is the same actor.


Um, maybe ONE of the things he modeled it after was LOTR, but not that much. show me where he said that. I do know that he modeled some of it after Flash Gordon and Samurai warriors, among other things. Star Wars as it is is a pretty original story.....

obviously you can find similarities and parallels....but I don't think that this one was intentional.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Heh, not really IR. You only see the Saruman thing because it is the same actor.

think about the following (this was posted as a seperate thread some time ago so Im just gonna cut and paste):

The Christopher Lee Coincidence
Ok this may already have been brought up but I couldnt find it so Im just wondering if anyone else noticed that Christopher Lee (Sauramon) plays the EXACT same character in both Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Really! Think about it. He plays this powerful wizard/Jedi who has natural abilities beyond those of normal humans and who is supposed to be part of a powerful council of gaurdians (the 5 wizards/the council of Jedis) whos sole purpose in life is to help out the common people by using their special abilities against... the dark side. BUT in BOTH movies he is seduced by the dark side and goes against his council and ends up fighting them only to be defeated in the end. AND in both movies there is an evil power more powerful then he who he claims to serve but who he actually wants to take power from. He even builds a secret army to fight the good guys in both movies!!! sheesh. Makes you wonder where Lucas got his inspiration. And was having Christopher Lee play both those roles done on purpose?

so PLEASE explain to me how this is just an enormous coincidence. I seriously doubt it. Somewhere along the line someone had a good laugh with that (on the Lord of the Rings side).


obviously you can find similarities and parallels....but I don't think that this one was intentional.

oh i think it was tremendously influenced by Lord of the Rings. On so many levels and in so many ways. of course its not the same story but the universal theme is the same and so much of the metaphoric meat of the two stories is the same.

[IronParrot]

I think it's very close-minded to assume that one character rips off another because they have the same actor in similarly villainous roles.

In both Star Wars and LOTR, it appears that Christopher Lee was cast because he'd already developed a personal typecast as a megalomanical villain, and thus was ideal in either case. In all likelihood, both Peter Jackson and George Lucas knew he was right based on his previous work as Dracula, Scaramanga (the man with the golden gun), etc. Furthermore, George Lucas already had a precedent for casting Avengers alumni in his films - Julian Glover in The Empire Strikes Back and The Last Crusade, Clive Revill in The Empire Strikes Back, and so many more; bringing in Christopher Lee was hardly a stretch.

Although Dooku and Saruman have similar relationships to the power we identify as "evil", I would say that they differ significantly in terms of political idealism. Dooku is drawn into evil by way of his disillusionment with the Republic; Saruman is drawn to evil by way of his pessimistic outlook that Sauron will triumph, and that he might as well reap in the spoils.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by IronParrot
I think it's very close-minded to assume that one character rips off another because they have the same actor in similarly villainous roles.

who said anything about ripping off another character? I was just throwing out the observation about the highly similar characters and wondering outloud about the reason for it. thats close minded? good greif....

Although Dooku and Saruman have similar relationships to the power we identify as "evil", I would say that they differ significantly in terms of political idealism. Dooku is drawn into evil by way of his disillusionment with the Republic; Saruman is drawn to evil by way of his pessimistic outlook that Sauron will triumph, and that he might as well reap in the spoils.

i think yer seriously splitting hairs here and missing my overall point. there are so many similarities between the two characters (independent of the fact its the same actor) that its really worth a serious double take. it goes well beyond just being one dimensional or type cast. both rolls were written so similarly that you have to be amused. but apparently only I was.

[HOBBIT]

I agree with IronParrot. He always puts things into words better than I :p

who said anything about ripping off another character? I was just throwing out the observation about the highly similar characters and wondering outloud about the reason for it. thats close minded? good greif....

From the way you were talking, it sounding as if you were accusing George Lucas of copying LOTR and the Saruman character and even getting the same actor.

That is certainly what it looked like to me. It did not seem like you were just wondering this outloud.

I was amused when I saw Count Dooku - I thought "here is Christopher Lee playing the same character....again!" I didn't think that Lucas copied the character of Saruman.

A lot of movies have villains similar to Dooku and Saruman - do you really think that you would be making this comparion if Dooku was played by a different actor? I seriously doubt it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
A lot of movies have villains similar to Dooku and Saruman - do you really think that you would be making this comparion if Dooku was played by a different actor? I seriously doubt it.

did you even READ what i wrote up there about the incredible parallels between the two characters?? are we living in denial world here people?! theres literally a litenay of things that are EXACTLY THE SAME between the two characters. i dont care if one of the rolls was played by Julia Child for gods sake. you really have to be kidding me if you are that blind that you see no real similarity between the two rolls. what exactly is yer agenda here that you can sit here with a straight face and say nope sorry dont see anything beyond the fact that they are villans. sorry. thats a joke.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex:
Ok this may already have been brought up but I couldnt find it so Im just wondering if anyone else noticed that Christopher Lee (Sauramon) plays the EXACT same character in both Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Really! Think about it. He plays this powerful wizard/Jedi who has natural abilities beyond those of normal humans and who is supposed to be part of a powerful council of gaurdians (the 5 wizards/the council of Jedis) whos sole purpose in life is to help out the common people by using their special abilities against... the dark side. BUT in BOTH movies he is seduced by the dark side and goes against his council and ends up fighting them only to be defeated in the end. AND in both movies there is an evil power more powerful then he who he claims to serve but who he actually wants to take power from. He even builds a secret army to fight the good guys in both movies!!! sheesh. Makes you wonder where Lucas got his inspiration. And was having Christopher Lee play both those roles done on purpose?Yes, there are some similarities. But Star Wars' Dooku is such a pale, one-dimensional imitation of Saruman that comparing them is pointless. By using Christopher Lee, I'm guessing Lucas thought the presence of the same actor would make up for his screenplay's inability to create the same type of "Saruman-like" personna on its own.

[IronParrot]

But Star Wars' Dooku is such a pale, one-dimensional imitation of Saruman that comparing them is pointless.
Strongly disagree with the first part of that. Dooku is a tremendously different character because he turns his powers to the vices of evil for tremendously different reasons. The fall of the Republic as told in the SW Prequels, particularly as it relates to the sham Separatist movement propped up by Dooku, is by all indications a tale motivated by political disillusionment and idealism.

Saruman's fall to evil is a completely different take on how one is seduced by power, as he does so not out of reasons regarding internal political strife, but rather in terms of how to deal with an external force sweeping over Middle-Earth.

If Star Wars were a case where Darth Sidious was militarily invading the galaxy planet by planet, and Dooku served him to avoid harm and in the future hope to overthrow him as the Dark Lord, then you might have a point.

The similarities between the two characters lie primarily in the theme of Corruption, but that's a theme that's very conducive to creating and presenting a complex villain, no? Therefore, one should not fault George Lucas for it.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by IronParrot
Strongly disagree with the first part of that. Dooku is a tremendously different character because he turns his powers to the vices of evil for tremendously different reasons. The fall of the Republic as told in the SW Prequels, particularly as it relates to the sham Separatist movement propped up by Dooku, is by all indications a tale motivated by political disillusionment and idealism.Maybe a Star Wars geek "got it," but I seriously doubt that most of the movie audience looked at Dooku as anything more than another Darth Sideous henchman who appears mid-movie. Unlike Saruman, there was no real set-up of the character. Dookus sort of appears and I guess we were supposed to just intuitively understand him and his motivations. Frankly, using Christopher Lee's "evildoer" film history appears to have been a lazy, short-hand way for Lucas to tell the audience about what they could expect from the character. That's pathetically, poor screenwriting in my book.

[IronParrot]

Maybe a Star Wars geek "got it," but I seriously doubt that most of the movie audience looked at Dooku as anything more than another Darth Sideous henchman who appears mid-movie. Unlike Saruman, there was no real set-up of the character. Dookus sort of appears and I guess we were supposed to just intuitively understand him and his motivations. Frankly, using Christopher Lee's "evildoer" film history appears to have been a lazy, short-hand way for Lucas to tell the audience about what they could expect from the character. That's pathetically, poor screenwriting in my book.
Or just a pathetically lazy audience's mindset.

There is setup aplenty, starting right from the opening crawl. You'll find that a lot of great screen villains are introduced in person late into a given story, particularly where a mystery is concerned. The fundamental difference here is that Saruman is not introduced as an answer to a mystery, but rather as a catalyst for more dramatic consequences. Dooku is a character that Obi-Wan and thus the audience "discover" is a villain. His political motivations are established very early on; Padme sees him as a sort of Osama bin Laden, while the Jedi are confident that he is merely a retired wacko.

Christopher Lee actually plays one of my favourite Avengers villains in the colour episode "Never, Never Say Die" - and in that one as well, he is not introduced until the second half.

Keep in mind that an average Joe who doesn't understand Tolkien, for example, oft complains about how Frodo is too weak and vulnerable a character to be the hero of the story. Obviously, that is not the fault of Tolkien but rather something that he intended to show, in order to demonstrate a point. Could you level a similar accusation that "only Tolkien geeks" would get that point?

George Lucas' writing has its weaknesses, but particularly with respect to the Prequels, plotting is not one of them. In fact, there are surprisingly few films out there that deal with the theme of failed democracy with the same degree of complexity.

The Lord of the Rings - and Saruman as a character - are not in any way related to failed democracy.

Also note that in Tolkien's original text, the whole story behind what happened to Saruman is also kept a mystery until the Council of Elrond. In a sense he "sort of appears" - in fact, he doesn't really appear in the primary narrative until the tail end of Book III.

But anyhow, if this debate is going to end up being a critique of Star Wars alone, I'd prefer we take it to the Star Wars forum.

[Elfhelm]

Avoiding the current Christopher Lee comparison and back to the main...

George Lucas loved Lord of the Rings. Of that there can be no doubt. He also read Joseph Campbell. Campbell and Tolkien were both interested in what Lucas was studying. Another influence on Lucas was Akira Kurasawa. Star Wars is the result of Kurasawa film ideas, Campbell's hero cycle, and Tolkien's modern idea of an epic. But this should be no surprise, since just about every fantasy (and space opera is fantasy) writer since the 40's has been influenced by Tolkien.

Again, I agree that direct comparison are only being made because of the time of each movie release. Matrix was wise and didn't try to compete. Harry Potter producers also know that they have to release a few weeks before or they will lose some ticket sales.

But especially I think that direct comparisons between LOTR and SW are dull. Since Tolkien's work was finished by the time Lucas was still trying to buy his first car, the only thing you can do is show where Lucas copied Tolkien. The arboreal ewoks are like crazed hobbits who live in Lothlorien. That would mean he is borrowing ... er ...stealing from him. As they say great writers don't borrow, they steal.

Just my 2 cents. Now back to the disagreement at hand. Of course Dooku is based on Saruman. And the gradual disintegration of Aniken's morality is based on Macbeth. Why re-invent the wheel?

[Wayfarer]

Unlike Saruman, there was no real set-up of the character. Dookus sort of appears and I guess we were supposed to just intuitively understand him and his motivations. Unlike Saruman? I'm sorry, but movie Saruman is only mentioned once before being shown, and then he just sort of appears, and is good for a while, then all the sudden a villain. Dooku has much more set up and introduction.

[IronParrot]

Just my 2 cents. Now back to the disagreement at hand. Of course Dooku is based on Saruman. And the gradual disintegration of Aniken's morality is based on Macbeth. Why re-invent the wheel?
Exactly. And that's why it's similarly arrogant to presume that Tolkien was the Originator of Everything, as much as we love his work. Of course George Lucas took all sorts of cues from Tolkien. It's funny you mention Macbeth, because if there's one work that is a clear influence behind certain elements of The Lord of the Rings, it's Big Mac. I'd expound, but Tom Shippey did it better.

One writer - I don't remember who - postulated that all possible ideas in fiction have been explored already; it's just a matter of how you do it, and with what degree of success.

Unlike Saruman? I'm sorry, but movie Saruman is only mentioned once before being shown, and then he just sort of appears, and is good for a while, then all the sudden a villain. Dooku has much more set up and introduction.
Like I said earlier, this is a completely moot comparison.

Dooku and Saruman play clearly different roles and merit different methods of introduction. One is inductive; the other is deductive. It's not that one had more setup than the other - it's just that one needed his reputation to precede him for story purposes.

If it were not completely unfeasible in a narrative sense, I do kind of wish that the film had preserved Tolkien's introduction of Saruman, who never showed up in the primary narrative until Isengard's defeat. But that's so minor it's not even a gripe - it doesn't hurt the film, and at the same time it just reminds us of another facet of the book's intricacy.

As for the main subject of this thread:

I once again reiterate that comparisons/contrasts between SW and LOTR are wonderful in an analytical sense - discussing their similarities and differences in ideology, the handling of the concept of power and corruption, et cetera. Similarities between characters are fair game just as they would be in any comparative literature study or essay - I'm sure you've all written some at one point or another.

But there are limits. As many of you would agree, it's the "one is better than the other" kind of immaturity that gets on my nerves.

Comparative analysis requires analysis, not name-calling.

[b.banner]

i really think that starwars and lotr are both classics i mean tolkien and george lucas have great ideas people who don t like starwars and like lotr and the same for people who like starwars and dont like lotr i mean there both really good

[Black Breathalizer]

For some strange reason, I'm reminded of the scene in the movie Airplane where the hero tells his life story to the old lady seated next to him on the plane and she after a few minutes she decides to kill herself to end the pain.

[hectorberlioz]

Hmm? whats going on?
What thread is this? I forgot. really....oh yeah, loltr is better than starwars...right. Just got distracted by other people talking about totally irrelevent things.
Didnt Ironparrot close this thread?