Star Wars or LOTR?

Question

Which is the better movie saga. Obviously the LOTR books are amazing, but taken strictly at their merit as films. Which is better and why? Acting, directing, cinematography, editing, music??????

I'm sorry for the confusion...I am speaking of the ORIGINAL Star Wars trilogy...I try not to think about the other ones

Answer 1

It's incredibly difficult to really pinpoint which is better. Peter Jackson's trilogy was an amazing feat. In fact, just last night I was watching one of many documentaries on Return of the King. The special effects used in the Palleanor (sp?!) fields battle are simply breathtaking.

But at the same time, looking back on the original Star Wars trilogy, the special effects were also breathtaking for the times. Lightsaber duels, the Death Star trench and Endor forest scenes, these were all special effects that at the time were unthinkable. As for the new prequal trilogy, the effects are still stunning, but I feel they're almost over-done. Granted, it's a sci-fi flick. But I feel that the new trilogy fails to keep up the 'space cowboy/western set in space' feel that Lucas wanted the original trilogy to have.

As for directing, I think Peter Jackson nails it on the head. With Star Wars, George Lucas directed only four episodes: I, II, II and IV. You'll notice that most Star Wars fans find episodes V and VI the best. Coinscidence? I doubt it. Before Attack of the Clones came out, Hayden Christensen was in a movie called "Life as a House," staring alongside Kevin Kline. After seeing this movie, I was even more excited for AotC, knowing that Hayden would be playing Anakin. Like many fans, I was severely disappointed by his performance in AotC. But I really don't think it's his fault. I blame it on bad directing and a lousy script.

Judging the music is much harder for me. Being in my mid-twenties, I grew up with the Star Wars trilogy. The music is embedded into my brain. In fact, my boyfriend and I have already planned to incorporate it into our wedding next year. (in as tacky-less a way as possible :-P ) I have a strong admiration for John Williams, not only for his work on Star Wars, but on Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, and many other films. Yet Howard Shore's masterpieces for Lord of the Rings are equally powerful. He makes it very easy for us moviewatchers to feel the emotion of each scene. Two thumbs up, one for Williams, one for Shore.

Like I said earlier, it's extremely difficult to really say one is better than the other. Both sagas are equally brilliant in their own merits!

Answer 2

If you are including the new Star Wars trilogy then LOTR all the way!

If we are comparing the original it is hard to compare because for their time they had the latest in innovations, the music stirred the imagination, the story line was intriguing, and all you can do from an artists eye is sit back and say wow!

I can't say which I like best. I skip through parts when watching LOTR. I don't do that with Star Wars... I wonder if that is a hint? HA HA!!!

Well, for acting I'd say LOTR because you can feel the emotions of the characters better than in Star Wars (all movies included). The LOTR people put in a lot more effort it seems.

Directing/Editing... not quite sure but George and Stephen have it going on in so many ways. Peter has it going on too. Come on they are the best. No comparing them. They have their methods to their madness.

Cinematography... both considering their time (excluding the new Star Wars) yet LOTR did a lot of fancy shmancy stuff to get the right details in place and they were very nice. But... can you beat Luke starring into a double sunset?

Music... both are good. Equally original and awesome.

Answer 3

If we're talking about the Star Wars "Saga," then definitely LOTR. But if you're just talking about the Star Wars Trilogy, perhaps as it was in 1996, the question is somewhat harder. LOTR definitely had better and more consistent acting; by ROTJ, the Wars actors were either phoning in or coked out. Both have fantastic music, and all other elements are at least competent.

Answer 4

Star Wars

Answer 5

I got well into this before seeing K's disclaimer about the originals .. rather than change anything I'll just ask you to take it with a grain of salt.

Agree that if we're not talking about the original Star Wars trilogy then it's not even a discussion .. episodes IV-VI are all but worthless. Before those I'd have said you couldn't make Natalie Portman look like a horrible, wooden, emotionless, bad actress .. thereyago. Actually .. I guess I could have just said 'Jar Jar, discussion over.' The later episodes also took all the magic out by trying to rationalize The Force (midichlorians .. c'mon!) - they were just reaching feebly for old glory throughout, punctuated by brief bright spots like the Darth Maul fight at the end of episode IV.

Original Star Wars though, it's fairly close but I have to give the nod to LotR.

Acting: LotR
Not only a much better crop of actors, Liv Tyler notwithstanding, but the LotR adaptation was working off a longstanding literary masterpiece that anyone familiar with Tolkien could identify with. Harrison Ford is reputed to have stopped in the middle of a scene in the original Star Wars shooting and said "George .. no one can SAY this s**t!!" It's tough to come up with and deliver believable acting in a from-scratch fictional universe (Star Wars) vs a world where everyone is wondering how well you can deliver what they already know is coming and have pre-accepted. Another factor is that LotR was shot all at once so the continuity/synergy between the actors is solid throughout as one continuous project .. not so with Star Wars.

Cinematography: Star Wars
Remember, this came out the same year as Smokey and the Bandit and Kentucky Fried Movie. What you saw in Star Wars changed everything, forever. It was that much of a leap over anything else that came before .. Close Encouters that year was the closest rival for FX. When I was a kid I lived 4 blocks from the movie theatre and I must have seen 12-14 Star Wars matinees - I wasn't the 'most' in my peer group by a long shot. Can you imagine one of your kids wanting to see a movie 12 times in the theatre today? It was just so over the top there'd been nothing else remotely comparable .. like seeing HD color if you've only ever had a black and white. LotR had some of the best FX 'to date', but were not revolutionary .. I think the Pellenor Field scene is the best large scale battle ever put on film, but it is really just an extension of, say, the panic dino herd scene in Jurassic Park.

Music:
Too tough to judge. Music is supposed to pluck at your emotions and mood and both films did extremely well. Being Star Wars generation though, that score is as hardwired into my brain as any of those that posted above me. I can't say that the LotR score was less effective though, only that I am less familiar with it.

Directing:
I need to shorten these up ... I have to go with Jackson. Although I'm Star Wars generation, there were a lot of annoying things about the first trilogy. That is, there are (were) things that made me think 'oh fer chrissake' in Empire and Return of the Jedi despite the whole being sound. That never, ever happened in the LotR trilogy. In most instances, expectations were exceeded down to little details (ie Legolas not even leaving footprints while everyone else is hip-deep in snow) .. huge advantage to Jackson again that he was working off a proven commodity, but there were no points that I thought 'that could have been better.' Not so with Lucas.

Editing:
Jackson. This is tough as well, but until there are other things to compare it to, LotR can't be touched. If the original Star Wars had had a comprehensive vision for all three films that might be different. Jackson had the scales weighted on his side from day 1 though .. making stuff up over 6-8 years and trying to make it all fit piece by piece 'can we do this?' (Star Wars) vs having the entire project laid out in front of you and dealing with 'how do we do this?'

Answer 6

the first three movies of star wars back in the 70's and 80's was really good.
special FX was also cutting edge; LOTR FX could not have been possible without the technology that lucas arts pioneered.
the theme orchestra or music beats LOTR outright, i think the starwars theme is one of the most famous along with the themes of indiana jones or james bond or star trek.
plot and intrigue is also good in the first three but somehow it got ruined by the prequels especially episodeIII, bad acting has something to do with it

on the other hand, LOTR has more sophistication to story plot and consistency
the only difficult task in comparing the two films is because their nature are of different genres

and although i've mentioned some negative points for star wars, i think i'll still vote for it

Answer 7

Star Wars is better, in my opinion.

Star Wars had to find it's audience upon release. With the overwhelming popularity of Tolkein's books, the LOTR trilogy had a built-in audience upon release. Also, while there are some similar elements in LOTR, the Star Wars movies are very spiritual in nature. Lots of people can identify with that.

Answer 8

I like both so much, but I think I am going to go with L.O.T.R. on this... It isn't a easy choice. Star Wars broke a lot of ground in the movie industry, but all in all L.O.T.R. out shined in total.
CyberNara

Answer 9

Star Wars by far. I fell asleep during the first LOTR and never saw the rest. The details were so drawn out that it turned the movie into a big sleeping pill.

Answer 10

Star Wars! LOTR bores me to tears.