It's that time again! We've all had time to reflect...

[Wesker 0]

Mass Effect is gobsmackingly awesome....I won't call it the best game ever made outright, but its definitely comfortably up there in the top with Deus Ex and Half Life 2.

Mass Effect doesn't even come close. Don't get his hopes up. That glitch fest was almost as disappointing as Fable. The second game does look better, though.

Btw, the games' score was pure crap. What was that guy thinking when he scored it? Gloom/Dungeon music in the Citadel? Why?

They should have just given the project to Soule, he could have written a better score in his sleep.

[John Crichton 4]

I like Fable. All the "life" stuff isn't worth the effort, but the basic combat and quests are good.

[Ollie 1,059]

Anyhoo at the end of the third quarter Lucas enjoys a 34-14 lead over PJ's team.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

I think Jackson and his car full of Oscars will be okay with us voting against him. And by "us" I mean y'all, 'cause I voted for him.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Mass Effect is gobsmackingly awesome....I won't call it the best game ever made outright, but its definitely comfortably up there in the top with Deus Ex and Half Life 2.

Mass Effect doesn't even come close. Don't get his hopes up. That glitch fest was almost as disappointing as Fable.

I didn't encounter any gamestopping bugs, or any bugs in my playthru to be honest. Yes, the inventory system is a mess, and there were some framerate drops in the 360 one...but thats about it. What matters is the overall experience, and in that aspect it excelled.

Btw, the games' score was pure crap.

I thought it was kinda ok. I think they wanted to go for the Blade Runner-ish synthy sound..

[Henry B 50]

Mass Effect is gobsmackingly awesome....I won't call it the best game ever made outright, but its definitely comfortably up there in the top with Deus Ex and Half Life 2. smile.gif

Mass Effect doesn't even come close. Don't get his hopes up. That glitch fest was almost as disappointing as Fable.

I didn't encounter any gamestopping bugs, or any bugs in my playthru to be honest. Yes, the inventory system is a mess, and there were some framerate drops in the 360 one...but thats about it. What matters is the overall experience, and in that aspect it excelled.

Wasn't it cleaned up a lot for the PC release? I've been thinking of picking that up.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Its been reported that the PC has better framerates and a better interface. IINM, the inventory menus may have been tweaked but they are still far from perfect, especially when you are trying to buy and sell stuff. Again, its a minor flaw when everything else is so good.

[Quintus 5,399]

Mass Effect on the 360 was a fantastic, bug laden game. The story and climax was one hundred percent successful and I loved every minute of it. The framerate issues and clumsy menu interface didn't deter from the fact that this game was greater than the sum of its parts. I loved the score too, though I wouldn't want to listen to it outside of the game.

As for this poll, it's a farce!

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

Thanks, that helps me alot ....

Wisdom check 1d20.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

You didn't convince anyone Fatty!

Yes, I admit I don't know Dungeons and Dragons. It's not like it's a terribly important cultural thing ....

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

You didn't convince anyone Fatty!

Yes, I admit I don't know Dungeons and Dragons. It's not like it's a terribly important cultural thing ....

In the world of über-nerds, it is.

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

Well, film music is a terribly important cultural thing to many of us here. And in some cases not just the quality stuff. So I don't think it's so easy to compare/dismiss D&D.

D&D is certainly terribly important for anything related to games in any way. And as such, to an extent, also a bit to film music.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

Whatever.

[Quintus 5,399]

Not a good response.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

But an honest one

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

It may be not true in as far as Star Wars is by no means a copy of LOTR, but denying LOTR's impact on the films seems a little blind to me.

Tolkien's story is the most influential fantasy tale of the century, and arguing that borders folly. It's as silly as saying Harry Potter isn't influenced by Tolkien.

That's why I love the bit in ROTK where the dying Theoden tells Eowyn "You already have!" It pays hommage to a great moment in movie history, and yet remembers me that LOTR was there way before Star Wars.

Its somewhat a circle.

If Star Wars had not been made, we wouldnt have the LOTR movies as they are.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

Uuh, why?

[Desplat13 1]

Because.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Uuh, why?

because Peter Jackson said so

[Red 75]

You could argue that Howard Shore couldn't have written LOTR without John Williams reintroducing the large orchestral film score with Star Wars (among others). Could being the operative word.

[Henry B 50]

This argument is foolish.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

I was not talking about the scores, just the movies.

Joe summed it up perfectly already.

[Ollie 1,059]

While there's no denying Star Wars' influence, if it hadn't been made some other movie or film score would have come along and paved the way for LOTR.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

because Peter Jackson said so

In case you're referring to the Bonus DVD of the latest Star Wars re-re-re-rerelease, I believe all Jackson said was that George Lucas gave hope to all the strange boys at school "who never had any girlfriends, who didn't go out" - not very flattering.

But don't think I don't get your point. I do. But to assume LOTR wouldn't have been made without Star Wars is as foolish as saying big orchestral scores wouldn't have been made if it wasn't for Star Wars.

Orchestral wasn't eradicated from the face of earth - eventually someone would have done it.

And btw, I think King Kong was the quintessential movie in Jackson's life, not Star Wars.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

I f*cking said that the LOTR movies would not be AS THEY ARE now.

Without SW, maybe there would not be enough SFX advancement, and they would have not been made yet, or PJ wouldnt have created his own SFX company, or they would be animation, or it would be Jim henson's puppets, or... etc.

[Ollie 1,059]

Eventually someone would have come up with it. The technology used on Star Wars would have been applied on some other film and it would have it's origins from that instead.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Indeed, the influence of Star Wars is severely overrated.

[John Crichton 4]

But would it have had the cultural influence that Star Wars had, regardless of the influence within the industry?

[Ollie 1,059]

Now that is still open for debate.

[Henry B 50]

Eventually someone would have come up with it. The technology used on Star Wars would have been applied on some other film and it would have it's origins from that instead.

Well, that's like saying that if Lincoln hadn't freed the slaves, somebody else would have. It's true, but it doesn't mean Lincoln wasn't influential!

[Olivier 5]

I watched the EE of TLOR this past three evenings (well, nights); I had not been able to watch them again since buying the last DVD (it does require an awful amount of free time).

I have not seen any of the original SW movies in a very long time, but I know them well enough from childhood, and the prequels are recent enough for me to have good enough a memory for a discussion.

Before adding my own two cents, I'd like to say I don't understand (though it's not very surprising) that so many replies to Quint's simple question ("Which is your favourite trilogy?", which, though independent, does entail "Which is the better?") have hinged on the overall popularity, the influence on the industry and so forth: what do box office and DVD sales or the evolution of special effects have to do with "favorite" & "better"? Beats me.

Now, my thoughts...

Firstly, I love both "sagas".

Secondly, they are very very different.

Thirdly, what about Star Trek?

In the end, I think TLOTR is better than SW (the whole thing). As for my favorite, I don't want to choose: as John T. Chance would say, "I'd hate to have to live on the difference".

One reason certianly is that TLOTR is based on books (which I still have to read, incidentally) which the author (a linguist) spent years and years working on, developing the whole mythology, universe, creatures, languages, characters, plot points, ...

Of course, literary and cinematographic masterworks can, and have been produced, in far less time, but it does give TLOTR an edge.

The aim was not exactly the same either. Whether Lucas did literally intended to make a movie for kids, while writing something deeper than "zap! you're dead!", and regardless of the directors, there is no denying these movies are meant to be fun above all. Like Indiana Jones, it was an tribute to movie serials, to adventure, and it was meant to be high entertainment.

This does not deny the movies any depth, nor mean that TLOTR is meant to be an intellectual arthouse movie.

The execution is different, however-- for all sorts of reasons, obviously, starting with the fact the very first SW was meant on a relatively shoestring budget, whereas Jackson eventually got the funding for three long movies, and even longer DVD versions.

There are some powerful moments in SW: Ben's death, "I am your father", Padme's fate, ... The "problem" (mostly for this comparison) is that the movies do not take the time to dwell on this, to let it sink in, to develop it: Luke and the gang board the Falcon and fight off Tie Fighters, Luke jumps (a great moment) and the Falcon flies away, Anakin is founda dn repaired and the movie ends, ...

This is a slight oversimplification, but the thing is, it's mostly about moving on.

On the other hand, we get to see the corrupting power of The Ring, to feel for Eowyn's impossible love and for Faramir's unfair treatment by his fater, to care for several characters.

As I said above, for all sorts of reasons, Tolkien then Jackson got a lot more time to develop all of this than Lucas, so the comparison is skewered from the start.

Yet, apart from the themes, emotionally, I think TLOTR is more affecting: we don't have much time to grieve for Beru & Owen, and Qui Gon's funeral is followed by a huge joyful party; Han and the Princess are in love, and he gets frozen (another great moment), yet he is soon saved. On the other hand, we have enough time to understand and appreciate Arwen's difficult choice and sacrifice, and Sam's committment is genuinely moving (going after Frodo in the water even though he cannot swim, sticking with him to the bitter end, carrying him, ...).

Both SW & TLOTR have great moments which it would be futile trying to compare: the assault on the Death Star is a sequence of high tension, and so is the battle of Helm's Deep; Luke's final duel with Vader is powerful, suspenseful, moving, and so is Faramir's ride back to a doomed city (suspense being replaced here with doom).

My conclusion: I love them both, but TLOTR turned out a better movie (series) thanks to a longer developing time and a longer screen time. For sheer entertainment, SW is probably better (and shorter, thus easier to watch).

[Ollie 1,059]

Eventually someone would have come up with it. The technology used on Star Wars would have been applied on some other film and it would have it's origins from that instead.

Well, that's like saying that if Lincoln hadn't freed the slaves, somebody else would have. It's true, but it doesn't mean Lincoln wasn't influential!

I'm not saying Star Wars wasn't influential. Of course it was.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Indeed, the influence of Star Wars is severely overrated.

a stir the pot comment if ever there was. The Star Wars influence is not severely overrated, its often underrated, even by the geeks and freaks who love it.

[Desplat13 1]

So, Olivier, are you saying that the SW movies would have been better longer?

If so, I probably agree with you, but I think that most here would not.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Longer running time doesn't necessarily make a better movie.

[Desplat13 1]

Of course not. I was just wondering if it would have in the case of Star Wars, given the talent on-board.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

2 hours is a perfect running time for a movie like Star Wars.

[Olivier 5]

So, Olivier, are you saying that the SW movies would have been better longer?

If so, I probably agree with you, but I think that most here would not.

I'm not sure, and you could argue that with the prequels, Lucas had three movies over which to develop things.

It may be a matter of focus, or quite simply of the kind of film Lucas wanted to make.

Even a couple of minutes, with a few seconds more here, a minute more there, could make a difference.