And I would want to watch these seniors race their walkers and duel with their canes for what reason?

I love you.

Seriously, I knew I couldnt be the only that was truly disappointed back in 97 or so when the rumors first started about new movies that they weren't going to be the Further Adventures of Luke Skywalker.

Oh, I've seen them in theaters, watched and mostly enjoyed them on DVD, but the PT is just not at the same level.

I would drop my LOTR EEs for the OT in a heartbeat. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the LOTR movies, but they don't hold a candle compared to Star Wars : OT, IMHO.

To answer this ridiculous, useless thread, Star Wars trilogy easily. It wipes the frickin' floor with LOTR in my opinion. Far more exciting, far better drama and suspense, villians that are a thousand times better than the lame villians in LOTR that never do anything, better characters, andmoments that are more memorable and special than anything the LOTR films offer. I could go on and on.

If you truly want the answer to this question, wait until 2004 and compare the sales numbers of the SW trilogy DVDs, and compare them to the LOTR DVD sales numbers, and see which comes out on top. I don't even have to tell you which will sell more, and by a longshot at that. You already know

talemyn, that's a little ridiculous, don't you think? Of course it does. If you haven't noticed the Star Wars trilogy was done 25 years ago before CG even existed. The effects in the original Star Wars trilogy are 10 times more revolutionary than the FX in the LOTR films, and they still hold up well by today's standards. But you can't compare the two because they were made in different eras. You're statement is akin to saying Ray Harryhausen's effects suck compared to films of today. Be a little reasonable.


Talemyn, do a search on Wagner's Ring Cycle.

Because most of us would rather see older good actors making Star Wars movies than younger lousy ones.

It's the same reason the Star Trek movies were better with the original cast than the Next Generation ones...age has nothing to do with it - it's all about talent and chemistry.

I love LOTR Trilogy movies...but nothing for me will ever compare to the whole Star Wars Saga...

I would say no, only for one reason, I have seen Star Wars a million times. I've only seen each of the LOTR films 3 times each(once for ROTK). I just think they will be getting more play just because of that. I don't have every line memorized.

I'd say Hell Yes.

LOTR is great, but it's not as good as Star Wars.

Hey, c'mon guys . . . ease up. For two Gold Edition and two Platinum Edition members, you should know better than to thread crap. If you don't like the thread, move on to another one. There seem to be plenty of people in this one enjoying the topic.I think it'll be interesting to see . . . I'm not so sure that it is a forgone conclusion . . .

. . . especially with the number of people who threaten to hold out if it's not the OT. You completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't putting down Star Wars or it's technical achievements by any stretch of the imagination. You are are exactly right . . . the effects of Star Wars were far more revolutionary that Lord Of The Rings movies. What I was thinking about when I talked about Lord Of The Rings benefiting from superior special effects is that I feel that part of the reason there has been a drought in good Fantasy movies (and Sci-Fi, to some extent), is that fantasy requires you to be taken to another world. It's been hard to do that effectively up until the last 5 or so years when special effects capabilities have allowed it. I honestly think that, if the Lord Of The Rings movies were made when the Star Wars movies were, that they would not have been as good as they are now. The battle scenes would not have been as effective, a lot of the magical aspects wouldn't have worked nearly as well, and the creatues (Gollum, the Balrog, the dragons, etc.) would have been pitiful. But the movies were made during a time when special effects could support it, and so it ended up being a better movie.

On the other hand, as I don't think that special effects played as much of a role in Star Wars, if they were made in the last few years, I don't think that the current special effects would improve it all that much. I'd imagine that hose who dislike the SE's and Episodes 1 and 2, would probably agree that fancy special effects aren't enough to carry the Star Wars films.Three things:

1) Please note that I said "arguably, the best fantasy story" . . . whether or not you think it is, in fact, "the" best doesn't take away from the fact that it is at least on of the finest fantasy stories ever created. That fact, undoubtedly, has a positive impact on the quality of the resulting movies (especially since Jackson kept as close to the original story as he did).
2) Interestingly, both Wagner's Ring Cycle and The Lord Of The Rings are descendant from the same Germanic myth: Nibelungenlied. I wonder if that has anything to do with them both ending up as such good stories . . .
3) A new movie, The Ring, is in the process of film that is also based off of Nibelungenlied. If that one does well, maybe the next step is to make a movie based on the Ring Cycle?

What I meant was that by filming them all together, you don't have to worry about the effects of time on the actors to the point that you notice it in the sequels (in particular, Lea and Han look much older in RTOTJ that in ANH, Luke's scar from the car crash that occured between filmings, etc.). It's the same problem that the Harry Potter movies are having . . . it's actors are aging faster than the characters.

By filming them all together, The Lord Of the Rings minimized the negative impacts caused by big breaks in between filming. Of course it doesn't guarantee a good movie, but it is another detail that helped the quality of the films.

The difference between the two trillogies almost everyone seems to be missing is the acting and delivery of dialogue in ANY Star Wars movie cannot even hold a feather to that in LOTR.

I actually like Star Wars better, but I am just being objective and honest here.

For example, compare the acting in Episode II with Natalie Portman and Hayden to any LOTR movie. Very pathetic in comparison.

See I could live without the LOTR movies because the book is infinately better...and Star Wars is just a movie from one man's mind!

no. i'll keep my LOTR trilogy ........

(and my SW 5 star boots in my back pocket - shhhhh!)

A resounding yes.

Life long SW fan, but if I could only have one trilogy it would be LOTR.

Fortunately, I'll be able to have and enjoy both whenever SW comes out so it's not an issue.

No, but if you offered me a BMW to get rid of my bicycle, I'd do it!

no way lotr aint goin nowhere! hehehe

Nope.

"WORST THREAD EVER!"

I'm throwing out my LOTR disks as I type this.

I'll take Star Wars over LOTR's middle-earth mumbo jumbo any day of the week. Star Wars is precious!

Is anyone here terrified of Star Wars Episode III? I mean, the first was horrible. The second was even worse -- acting, direction, dialogue, ugh!!!!!! How much worse can the third episode be is mind-boggling.

I love LotR. I like Star Wars, but never understood the big deal. I think they're seriously flawed films.

If I had to choose, I would give up LOTR forever in order to get Star Wars. No question about it.

Thank God I don't have to. I beg to differ. The first one was pretty bad and the second was was VASTLY superior. It's better than Return of the Jedi, and I really enjoy watching it.

Bye bye Star Wars. LOTR is infinitely better, and everyone knows it.

I'd tell Lucas to keep his poorly acted kids' movies, and keep Jackson's deep, well-made epics to watch again and again.