It's official: The Lord of the Rings is the world's favourite movie trilogy

[Chen G. 3,940]

Nope, I'll just quote Sir Richard Taylor:

 

Quote

Peter pointed at Braveheart as a good example of the feeling he hoped to evoke in Middle Earth.

 

Hmm...

 

 

[mstrox 6,637]

There aren't any racist drunks with blue faces in Jackson's Middle Earth, at least as far as I can remember.

[Wojo 2,453]

3 minutes ago, mstrox said:

There aren't any racist drunks with blue faces in Jackson's Middle Earth, at least as far as I can remember.

 

Saruman's Uruk-Hai have white paint smeared on their faces instead, and they have meat on their menu. 

 

They have no place in today's social media world. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,008]

23 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Nope, I'll just quote Sir Richard Taylor:

 

 

Hmm...

 

 

It's the original LotR prequel!

[Chen G. 3,940]

See, @Jurassic Shark gets it!

[Fabulin 3,506]

 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Star Wars is more accessible to general audiences and more popular overall. LOTR is more pretentious and boring, so strictly for nerds.

[Chen G. 3,940]

2 hours ago, Dieter Stark said:

Star Wars is more accessible to general audiences and more popular overall

 

That much is true: the films are much lighter, more dynamic, succint, and the plot is allowed to unfold in an almost completely linear manner (little to no use of flashback/flashforward). The Middle Earth films, by comparison, take an already complex narrative, full of a large number of characters, setpieces, story threads and concepts, and compounds that complexity by playing large parts of it out of chronological order.

 

Technically, too, certainly with regards to the entries directed by George Lucas, the filmmaking style of Star Wars is much more plain: not very pushed closeups, not a lot of movement, high-key lighting, no long takes to speak of, no use of slow-motion, etcetra. By comparison, Peter Jackson's camerawork is full of movement, stark closeups, superimposition, slow-motion, POV shots, etcetra. Its much more florid that way.

 

The space setting really serves Star Wars in this regard, too, because each planet is distilled to one archetypal environment: Tatooine is a desert planet; Hoth is an ice planet; Dagobah is a swamp planet, and Curoscant is an urban planet. We never get - nor do we need - a sense of geography of the Galaxy itself, other than there being an "outer rim" over which both the Republic and Empire - we come to learn - can't maintain tight control. By comparison, the viewer of the Middle Earth films needs to get some sense for the geography of Middle Earth, hence the occasional shots of map throughout the films.

 

I would also say some of the characterizations are more complex. The most complex character Star Wars pulled off is Kylo Ren, but he's still the villain of the piece. The Middle Earth films pull off complex characters as deuteragonists and protagonists, such as Thorin and Boromir.

 

The way the story is serialized is more complex, too. With the exception of The Last Jedi, every Star Wars film is set within some time period away from the previous film, and the text crawl is used to reorient the audience. With Middle Earth, each film within each trilogy is technically set immediately after the end of the previous one, with little to no recap.

 

There are certain thematic ideas in Sir Peter's films which are more complex, too. There's a commentary on isolationism throughout all six films, from the Hobbits' "its non of our concern what goes on beyond our borders" to Thranduils "other lands are not my concern" and Treebeard's "This is not our war." Star Wars isn't in the same thematic ballpark.

 

The imagery's and some story beats are more challenging, of course. I forgot how violent the fight with Lurtz really was! and the severed heads catapulted into Minas Tirith, yeesh! The only Star Wars film to play in the same league was Revenge of the Sith.

 

Part of the distinction comes from Star Wars being aimed at a younger demographic. That also effects their popularity, with people being exposed to Star Wars at a younger, more impressionable age.

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

46 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

That much is true: the films are much lighter, more dynamic, succint, and the plot is allowed to unfold in an almost completely linear manner (little to no use of flashback/flashforward). The Middle Earth films, by comparison, take an already complex narrative, full of a large number of characters, setpieces, story threads and concepts, and compounds that complexity by playing large parts of it out of chronological order.

 

Technically, too, certainly with regards to the entries directed by George Lucas, the filmmaking style of Star Wars is much more plain: not very pushed closeups, not a lot of movement, high-key lighting, no long takes to speak of, no use of slow-motion, etcetra. By comparison, Peter Jackson's camerawork is full of movement, stark closeups, superimposition, slow-motion, POV shots, etcetra. Its much more florid that way.

 

The space setting really serves Star Wars in this regard, too, because each planet is distilled to one archetypal environment: Tatooine is a desert planet; Hoth is an ice planet; Dagobah is a swamp planet, and Curoscant is an urban planet. We never get - nor do we need - a sense of geography of the Galaxy itself, other than there being an "outer rim" over which both the Republic and Empire - we come to learn - can't maintain tight control. By comparison, the viewer of the Middle Earth films needs to get some sense for the geography of Middle Earth, hence the occasional shots of map throughout the films.

 

I would also say some of the characterizations are more complex. The most complex character Star Wars pulled off is Kylo Ren, but he's still the villain of the piece. The Middle Earth films pull off complex characters as deuteragonists and protagonists, such as Thorin and Boromir.

 

There are certain thematic ideas in Sir Peter's films which are more complex, too. There's a commentary on isolationism throughout all six films, from the Hobbits' "its non of our concern what goes on beyond our borders" to Thranduils "other lands are not my concern" and Treebeard's "This is not our war." Star Wars isn't in the same thematic ballpark.

 

The imagery's and some story beats are more challenging, of course. I forgot how violent the fight with Lurtz really was! and the severed heads catapulted into Minas Tirith, yeesh! The only Star Wars to play in the same league was Revenge of the Sith.

 

Part of the distinction comes from Star Wars being aimed at a younger demographic. That also effects their popularity, with people being exposed to Star Wars at a younger, more impressionable age.

 

Interesting post.

 

I think LOTR is simply a more complex narrative in that it has more characters, more subplots, and its premise takes a lot longer to establish. Stars Wars by comparison can dispense with its premise in a single scroll per film.

 

I would argue that across the overall saga, Star Wars feels like it narrates a more sweeping tale. Star Wars apart from the Force which is mystical deal in terms readily understandable by modern audiences so is more immediately comprehensible. LOTR is a lot of fantasy mumbo jumbo. 

 

I would say simply from the point of view of storytelling smarts, Star Wars has this one. LOTR is very valuable but is very laborious. It doesn't have the easy momentum of Star Wars.

 

 

[Chen G. 3,940]

I'd actually say there's a lot more genre mumbo-jumbo in Star Wars. There's lots of "world-building" talk about events we've never witnessed in the course of the films, and mentions of places we'll never get the visit. There's a lot of technical talk, especially with regards to those pesky Death Stars.

 

The Lord of the Rings simply tells a story that requires much more explaining. It was, after all, a story written by a university don. But that gives it a sense of scale that Star Wars lacks. Again, I'm perfectly happy with each series being what it is.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I thought it was a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

[Chen G. 3,940]

I had the displeasure of reading the screenplay to Attack of the Clones, its even more filled with those annoying instances of name-throwing than the actual movie. Characters constantly mention places and events that we never saw and never will - in ways that don’t really inform the story - as part of a sad attempt to make the world of the films feel more expansive.

[Quintus 5,399]

 

16 minutes ago, Dieter Stark said:

I thought it was a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

 

 A lot of superstitious hocus pocus.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Brutal couple of trilogies. First, the Prequels, then the Hobbits.

[Chen G. 3,940]

No.

[Kasey Kockroach 2,343]

Howard Shore’s scores suit the films perfectly. In that they’re really boring. 

[A. A. Ron 1,736]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

No.

 

Yes.

[publicist 4,643]

Boys will be boys...

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

They're fantasy movies about wizards, orcs and shit. They're for boys.

[publicist 4,643]

But they don't have to talk about them all the time.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Now there I agree with you. We have a whole forum for that crap.

[Chen G. 3,940]

On 8/15/2019 at 4:42 AM, A. A. Ron said:

Yes.

 

I don't find the prequel trilogy "brutal". I like the action and the adventure in The Phantom Menace; which - for a film in the action-adventure genre - is saying much. I also like the greek-tragedy aspect of Revenge of the Sith, and I even find some merit in certain aspects of Attack of the Clones, although admittedly not much.

 

Conversly, when I started watching An Unexpected Journey, I've known all of the stock criticisms by heart - that its too long, that a trilogy format is unbeffitting of the story, that its scaled-up to be onpar with The Lord of the Rings. And while the nostalgia of the title music and Sir Ian Holm did soften me a bit, it was until the prologue was in full swing when I got what the filmmakers were going for, and I was with it.

 

The prologue serves a similar function to that of Fellowship: it shows the antagonist (and, by proxy, establishes the stakes) and opens the film on a high note. But in An Unexpected Journey, it serves another purpose: it introduces us to our protagonist. Bilbo, in this retelling, isn't it - he's merely the audience surrogate (and, therefore, his role in the prologue is appropriately that of a narrator). The protagonist, however, is Thorin. Its the equivalent of The Fellowship of the Ring if Isildur was still alive. Superb.

[Bilbo 3,709]

Lord of the Rings for both score and films. 

[Quintus 5,399]

4 hours ago, Dieter Stark said:

Now there I agree with you. We have a whole forum for that crap.

 

You just become irritated when The Lord of the Rings cock blocks your chances of working Batman or Titanic into the conversation.

[Marian Schedenig 8,153]

6 hours ago, Dieter Stark said:

They're fantasy movies about wizards, orcs and shit. They're for boys.

 

Without even going into the scope and target audience (and target audience scope) of LOTR, The Hobbit (the book) was written and advertised for boys and girls.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

6 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I don't find the prequel trilogy "brutal". I like the action and the adventure in The Phantom Menace; which - for a film in the action-adventure genre - is saying much. I also like the greek-tragedy aspect of Revenge of the Sith, and I even find some merit in certain aspects of Attack of the Clones, although admittedly not much.

I agree. The Phantom Menace has quite a bit of charm to it, and always seems to be a lot better than I remembered. It's definetly the best of the trilogy. Attack of the Clones took it self a bit more seriously, which made it laughable because it's a real sludge fest.. Revenge of the Sith though, I always enjoyed enough aspects of that enough to keep things afloat, although it doesn't escape some poor moves. 

[Pellaeon 593]

I occasionally have fond remembrances of TPM - it’s at least imaginative, right? - but I try to watch it and nope, still terrible.

 

I’ve only seen AotC and RotS once each, with no desire to revisit them ever. Other than two Kenobi vs. Fett scenes in AotC - great fun! Anakin is just awful, though. Script, direction, acting, garbage through and through.

[mstrox 6,637]

We're going to watch all of the Star Wars, or at least the episodes, before E9's release in December.  It will be the first time watching any of the prequels since they rereleased TPM in 3D 10 years or so ago.  I'm hoping I like them more than I remember.  Certainly with the context of the often excellent media surrounding them (Clone Wars, comics, etc), I'll go into them with a more favorable mindset.

[Chen G. 3,940]

40 minutes ago, Pellaeon said:

Script, direction, acting, garbage through and through.

 

There are some nice touches. Just about any scene between Anakin and Palpatine is dynamite.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But see, that's not true. They're barely adequate thanks to the stodgy, obvious and hamfisted writing. Just better than anything else in that woeful film.

[Pellaeon 593]

McDiarmid is deliciously evil. He takes schlock lines and sells the shit out of them. But Christensen’s Anakin, there’s no tragic fall of a great man, here. Just a punk kid. Ultimately the problem is you can’t see him really becoming the Lord Darth Vader as portrayed in the OT.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

Dynamite? Not quite, but in contrast to the rest of the film and the trilogy in general they are some of the best to come out of the prequels. I think that's the biggest reason why so many fans are jumping up and down for any chance to see Ian McDiarmid again, or for, say, Ewan McGregor to get his own movie/series. It's not because these actors knocked it out of the park, it's because they're golden in comparison to the relative messiness around them. Not to downplay they're performances though, because I love when McDiarmid hams it up and I think McGregor is just fine.

[Jurassic Shark 12,008]

55 minutes ago, mstrox said:

We're going to watch all of the Star Wars, or at least the episodes, before E9's release in December.  It will be the first time watching any of the prequels since they rereleased TPM in 3D 10 years or so ago.  I'm hoping I like them more than I remember.  Certainly with the context of the often excellent media surrounding them (Clone Wars, comics, etc), I'll go into them with a more favorable mindset.

 

I've wondered why only TPM was released in 3D - didn't it do that well at the box office?

[Fabulin 3,506]

.

[Pellaeon 593]

They were going to do all six movies in 3D, weren’t they? That would have been cool, not because of the 3D but just because a theatrical re-release is fun. I hated the Special Edition changes in 1997, but at the time the chance to see it in theaters with all your friends was a hell of a thrill.

[mstrox 6,637]

Wait - the TPM 3D rerelease made over $500,000,000?!  I don't believe that!

Ohhh, that includes the box office from the original release!  $500,000,000 in total, which of course is bigger when adjusted for inflation, but seems like peanuts now compared to some recent blockbusters.

 

for the whole 3D reissue,

$43,456,382

 

Which is still more than I expected, tbh, but reasonable.

[Fabulin 3,506]

.

[mstrox 6,637]

 

 

Worldwide, TPM's original release topped a billion, but the 3D release only made $43 million domestic, and it looks like $50-some million foreign.  Not sure why their table mixes those numbers up.

[Chen G. 3,940]

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

But see, that's not true. They're barely adequate thanks to the stodgy, obvious and hamfisted writing.

 

I mean, Christensen’s no good in those scenes. But McDiarmid wills his lines off of the page, and he carries the scenes. For me, it works.

[Bilbo 3,709]

2 hours ago, Pellaeon said:

They were going to do all six movies in 3D, weren’t they? That would have been cool, not because of the 3D but just because a theatrical re-release is fun. I hated the Special Edition changes in 1997, but at the time the chance to see it in theaters with all your friends was a hell of a thrill.

 

Disney cancelled the re-releases after buying the company as they wanted to focus the hype on the new movies. 

 

I think, when George was originally going to make VII himself it might have worked out that VII followed shortly on after ROTJ in 3D. 

 

AotC and RotS have been shown in 3d in limited screenings at Celebration and the like. 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

12 hours ago, Quintus said:

 

You just become irritated when The Lord of the Rings cock blocks your chances of working Batman or Titanic into the conversation.

 

LOTR quotes certainly don't have the same ring to them.

 

What the hell is all this prequel talk? Because I jokingly quoted Indiana Jones IV? Everyone knows I like the prequels. I swear you could post a photo of C3P0's elbow on this forum and you'd have 30 pages of Star Wars babble.

[John 2,032]

1 minute ago, Dieter Stark said:

LOTR quotes certainly don't have the same ring to them.

 

Hehe...

[Pellaeon 593]

36 minutes ago, Dieter Stark said:

I swear you could post a photo of C3P0's elbow on this forum and you'd have 30 pages of Star Wars babble.

 

Yeah, come on, people, it’s Lord of the Rings, now! The science is settled!

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

2 hours ago, Dieter Stark said:

LOTR quotes certainly don't have the same ring to them.

 

LOTR > SW but this is absolutely true. 

[Pellaeon 593]

The Princess Bride or Monty Python might win by those standards.

[Quintus 5,399]

10 hours ago, Dieter Stark said:

 

LOTR quotes certainly don't have the same ring to them.

 

 

8 hours ago, Dixon Hill said:

 

LOTR > SW but this is absolutely true. 

 

You know this? How?

[Marian Schedenig 8,153]

8 hours ago, Pellaeon said:

The Princess Bride or Monty Python might win by those standards.

 

Shut the fuck up, Donnie.

[Bespin 8,472]

Normal that Star Wars is now out of the running, as it will be soon an ennealogy!

[Chen G. 3,940]

But, in length and scope, roughly equivalent to the Middle Earth hexalogy (and to the Harry Potter octology).