The Lord of the Rings movie series in superior to the Star Wars movie series.
Debate Rounds (3)
This debate will not take the seventh Star Wars film into consideration, as it has not been released at the time of the start of the debate.
I argue that LOTR is better than SW for the following reasons:
1. LOTR films were far more elaborate. The massive sets: battlefields, cities, landscapes, etc. were far more impressive; costumes are more detailed; overall, the movies are much more grounded and the characters are relatable. The detail pulled into the original LOTR films surpasses the original SW films by a mile.
2. LOTR story is better. Obviously there is an advantage to being based on a book series, but the overall writing (dialogue, broad concepts, etc.) is better as well.
3. The acting is at a much higher level. Emotional reactions and realism in LOTR are at least a few steps (if not miles) above SW.
4. The stakes are greater in LOTR. If Sauron wins, the world is destroyed and everyone dies. In SW, if the Empire wins, a few planets are occupied by a tyrannical dictator, but people still survive, and can escape to other planets and galaxies.
5. The Hobbit prequels are not great, but they're less bad than the Star Wars prequels.
So lets get into this.
For your first point, yes, costumes and things may appear to be better, but keep in mind, the original Star Wars was made at a time where film production was on low budgets, also didn't have the technology like we currently do today. There was no Adobe After Effects and post production software that could make cool visual effects.
For your second point, you said Lord Of The Rings had a better story? Well, that's entirely 100% opinion based. No ifs, or buts, that's strictly an opinion.
For your third point, yes the acting wasn't as top notch, but does that make it a bad film? Obviously millions upon millions around the world love Star Wars. If the acting was so unwatchable like you over exaggerated, then hardly anyone would love the films. I mean, nothing more needs to be said on this subject other than that. As for the actors, Star Wars has had more big names in their films like Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, and just so many. Who was in Lord Of The Rings again?
For your fourth point, how do you know for sure everyone would have died in Lord Of The Rings if the bad guys were to have won? The film never ended with the bad guys truly winning to know for sure, but I would rather bet the farm that instead of wiping the world and killing everyone, it would go something similar to the end of Harry Potter Deathly Hollows Part 2 where Lord Voldemort in one of the last few scenes instead of killing everyone completely, he more or so wanted everyone to join his alliance, and pledge their allegiance to him. (Sure everyone else might have died although I somewhat doubt it, they would have problem been treated as slaves, like in the school with the bad guys now the overhead watch and stuff). I'm sure Lord Of The Rings would have ended similar if the bad guys won. As for being the stakes being greater? You can't just say something morally bad is more bad than something else morally bad because it's still bad no matter what.
5: Prequels are known to suck, most debates consist of judging originals, and this what this debate will be more or less based on for an better understanding.
However, more so those are opinion none the less, so, I am going to go over some film accomplishments with you.
Star Wars in itself has sold more mechandise than Lord Of The Rings ever will. I personally think Lord Of The Rings, won't even come close to having a fraction being made than what Star Wars has. The only thing Star Wars did well on was film gross on release and such, again coming at a time and a day in age where movies generally gross way more than older movies do since they are so widely open to the public(but Star Wars remains more popular and more liked over LOTR), but going back to sells, Star Wars has tons of merchandise in all categories, LEGO's, Cups, tons of shirts, MORE GAMES, and just everything, and I mean, I wouldn't be surprised they got Star War tooth brushes. - This is a win for SW.
Lets not forget what Star Wars has done for the film industry, and it's accomplishments that surpass Lord Of The Rings. Star Wars in itself has sparked the film industry with ideas, interventions, there is a reason why people always talk Star Wars, and you don't hear anything about LOTR.
From wikipedia "James Cameron, Dean Devlin, Gareth Edwards, Roland Emmerich, John Lasseter, David Fincher, Peter Jackson, Joss Whedon, Christopher Nolan, Ridley Scott, John Singleton, and Kevin Smith all have been influenced by Star Wars".
Star Wars has sparked space travel even, and in general has helped many actors, actresses blow up big.
It's won many awards, many nominations, and in just about every top 10 list for different categories, something will consist of Star Wars.
If Lord Of The Rings was truly better, it would be more popular (which isn't the case, but you'd think a film in todays age that grossed more in theaters would be). It would have more merchandise than what it does, but again Star Wars has sold so much more, and also more memorable characters outside of Gandalf when you can just list tons of memorable characters from Star Wars. Like I said, you claimed the story was better for LOTR, but none of the characters are memorable, so is the story really that better? Better than something that was the first of its kind? Better than something that has influenced the world ever since?
Don't worry, you still have time to repent, may the force be with you.
1. The original SW films were not low budget productions. They had a cumulative budget of $80 million, which adjusted for inflation is just over $350 million in 2015 dollars. The LOTR trilogy had a cumulative budget of $280 million, which is just over $390 million in 2015. That means SW was made on a budget just 10% smaller than LOTR. As for technology, costumes for LOTR were hand made for all actors in the large battle scenes, something that had not really been made easier in the 20 years that passed since the release of SW. I admit that there is the benefit of improved computer effects in LOTR, but that isn't the leading factor in their superiority - SW used much smaller sets with fewer actors, much more basic set design, more plain costumes, etc. These are things that were not held back by the earlier time period.
2. Yes, the matter of which story is better is opinion, but I would argue the depth of the lore is what makes LOTR better. Tolkien worked on his universe for decades, while Lucas wrote SW a couple of years before filming began. LOTR has a massive story structure that SW just doesn't have. Different groups/races/aliens/planets are mentioned in SW that audiences just accept as canon. In LOTR, these groups have entire languages, songs, histories, religions/mythologies, etc. that are actually written into the story and can be traced to real substantiated origins by the audience.
3. Acting is a huge part of the quality of a movie - if you can't believe or relate to a character's experiences, you can't really care about what's happening in the story. Millions of people watched and loved SW because the standard for good acting was not as high in the 1970s. I don't think that makes SW a BAD movie, I just thank it makes it LESS GOOD than LOTR. Harrison Ford is the only really big name actor (other than James Earl Jones who just lends his voice). Can you name another big success in the careers of Mark Hamill or Carrie Fisher? LOTR had Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Liv Tyler, Orlando Bloom, Sean Astin, Viggo Mortensen, and Cate Blanchett - all of whom are stars known for other major roles.
4. You are correct, I misspoke when I said everyone would die if Sauron won, they would have likely been enslaved. But I do believe that the world we see in Lady Galadriel's visions are objectively worse than a galaxy in the control of the Empire. People still lived with a degree of freedom at the beginning of SW ep. 4. In SW, the bad guys didn't want to make things worse, in LOTR they did. If the good guys failed in SW, nothing would have really changed from the status quo, whereas evil would have spread in LOTR.
5. Agreed. We drop the prequels from the debate for the sake of film quality.
Now to your arguments.
1. Merchandise sales do not make a movie good. Transformers sell more merchandise than almost any other franchise, but the movies are terrible.
2. For inspiration of filmmakers, SW happened in the formative years of many of today's directors, when they were kids. It's very likely that future directors will cite inspiration from LOTR in their childhood. Again, this does not make the movie better. Nosferatu is an early horror movie that inspired directors for decades, but it's nowhere near as good as some of the movies that have come since.
SW did not inspire space travel, space travel inspired SW - the moon landing was 8 years before Ep. 4.
3. LOTR has more awards and is critically held in higher regard. The SW trilogy won 10 Academy Awards. LOTR won 17 Academy Awards. We also have to remember that LOTR was made in a time of much more fierce film competition. SW was groundbreaking for its time, but LOTR was phenomenal in a time when movies were even better.
On the IMDb top 250 films of all time, SW films rank 19th, 12th, and 72nd respectively. LOTR films rank 11th, 16th, and 9th respectively.
On Rotten Tomatoes, SW films received 94%, 94%, and 80% respectively. LOTR films received 91%, 96%, and 95% respectively.
4. I certainly think LOTR has influenced the world in a HUGE way. It opened the doors on the fantasy genre. Popularity is NOT a measure of how good a movie is. This is evident by the success of mediocre films like Avatar, Fast and Furious, Transformers, etc. LOTR characters are very memorable, especially the fellowship. I admit Darth Vader is one of the most iconic villains in all of film, but that's more for his appearance than his character. You literally know nothing about Vader and his motivations or back story until the end of the second movie. Story is what matters in film, not popularity. More work went into the LOTR films as well, and it shows.
"1. Merchandise sales do not make a movie good. Transformers sell more merchandise than almost any other franchise, but the movies are terrible."
I never said anywhere that merchandise sells made Star Wars a good movie. ANYWHERE. I simply am bringing up more accomplishments that Star Wars has over Lord Of The The Rings, and transformers certainly does not sell more merchandise than Star Wars does. If we are going to be judging two film series against one another, about what had better what, then you gotta put in some facts cause otherwise, everything else is just an opinion like the story, the characters, and yadda yadda. So it's only right to include how much Star Wars has sold over Lord Of The Rings. In the common world, that generally almost means something is better if it's sold more with exceptions like Justin Bieber selling more CD's than most artist, and rather some other obscure things. This means A: More people are into Star Wars. B: Star was is more well known. - Star Wars
It's worth noting and correcting myself from a typo I made earlier. I originally tried to say that Lord Of The Rings has grossed more in theaters than Star Wars. WAY MORE, but still Isn't AS POPULAR, or well known in culture like Star Wars, and doesn't sell as nearly much merchandise. To me, that's a testament from a old film series.
"2. Yes, the matter of which story is better is opinion, but I would argue the depth of the lore is what makes LOTR better. Tolkien worked on his universe for decades, while Lucas wrote SW a couple of years before filming began. LOTR has a massive story structure that SW just doesn't have. Different groups/races/aliens/planets are mentioned in SW that audiences just accept as canon. In LOTR, these groups have entire languages, songs, histories, religions/mythologies, etc. that are actually written into the story and can be traced to real substantiated origins by the audience."
Again, an opinion, but since you going in depth into detail, I will say that Star Wars story was more so a story than Lord Of The Rings. Outside the first Lord Of The Rings movie, the dialogue was far in between cause the last two films were mostly just action, especially the third. Is that what you call a story? Action? Action....... Action? Might as well just say Transformers is the most told story in any movie to date cause that's pretty much all that it consisted of was action and fighting. Star Wars went above and beyond with dialogue. Namely all the characters had a lore of some sort more so than any of the Lord Of The Rings characters. AGAIN, outside of Gandalf, you had no memorable characters, while as for Star Wars, you had tons and tons. Some people love Yoda, some love Darth Vader, some love Skywalker, and it goes on and on, LOTR doesn't have those characters. Again, you call that story and a deeper lore than that of SW? Laughs.
At it's very simplistic, Lord Of The Rings was more or so about destroying a ring. (I mean, if we going to talk lores, and character creation, obviously Star Wars is by far the clear winner.. BY FAR). Now... if you were to mention the books, and their lores (which is totally irrelevant to this debate, that would have given LOTR a chance, but even then, not much is known about the characters). So having all those languages in LOTR was merely meant for a cool factor as it meant very little to nothing since again, most people are only familiar with gandalf, and the dialogue seemed to have slipped away after the first film which to me, in my opinion was the best of the trilogy. Sure, LOTR had a more richer look to its story, and is appealing by todays standards, but shiny isn't always better, even with the better acting. Also, Lord Of The Rings did take awhile into the movie before it even got interesting. Star Wars was actually MORE CREATIVE. Only downside, it was just flawed, but who's to say a campy style film is bad? It's entertaining.
3: You came back at me with acting naming another big success in the roles of Mark Hamill? I mean do I really need to name one? Almost anyone with certainty would know Mark Hamill quite well as he was one of the voices of the Joker, and regarded to be the best joker voice ever by many. To me, that's a huge success, and I don't see him running around broke.
(As for Mark, he isn't a bust). Carrie on the other hand.. Sure, her career was launched and she is a bust, but none the less, being in a film like Star Wars opened the door for many of the actors/actresses. Again, who are the Lord Of The Ring actors? Although I wouldn't give Star Wars a clear win for this category, it certainly has some well known actors (known world wide as for LOTR doesn't have ANY known world wide to the extent). Most people couldn't even tell you the actors who played gandalf.
4: Well, IMDb did score the ratings higher for Lord Of The Rings, that is a win for LOTR -LOTR but isn't saying much as Star Wars ranked heavily in itself.
5: Lord Of The Rings DID NOT open the door to fantasy. Star Wars did, as in fantasy clearly was/is a genre of Star Wars, even said by IMDb although most know it as a sci-fi. Again, Star Wars has done way more for the film industry as a whole than Lord Of The Rings and made perhaps the biggest impact ever in culture than any film ever. When you go to comic con, who do you see more of mostly? How did those highly detailed costumes go? Last I checked, comic con is filled with people dressing as characters from SW but again like I said, Star Wars had more memorable characters, interesting dialogue, and the movies weren't just filled with action.
If you were to type in Original Star Wars VS Lord Of The Rings, and read tons of comments from every website, the majority is screaming Star Wars. Obviously, the impact is so much greater.
Now going back to budgets and stuff, for its time, Star Wars had things never seen before in film when it released. It was like the Atari to Nintendo with everything going on. For that alone, that's impressive given the technology back then. Lord Of The Rings is now a afterthought in culture and in movies unless you go to debates like this, and ask people to name their favorite trilogies but all across the world, people celebrate Star Wars, it's clear who the real winner is.
Star Wars is more popular now because of the Force Awakens, but 15 years ago, when Star Wars prequels were being made at the same time as LOTR films, people were much more excited about LOTR. SW also has a larger fan base because the movies have been out longer, so more people have seen them. That doesn't in any way make them better movies.
We need to drop these arguments about the popularity of the movies or how good they have been marketed into merchandise opportunities - this is a debate about which movies are better, so those things are completely irrelevant.
Have you even seen LOTR? Because based on your comments about the latter two films being only action, I have to assume you've only watched the trailers. There are a few battles in each of those movies, but they take up less than an hour of screen time in each film lasting three hours or more. LOTR was much more dialogue-driven than SW, it's not even a close comparison. How can you claim that Gandalf is the only memorable character in LOTR? Frodo, Sam, Golum, Saruman, Legolas, Aragorn, Gimli, and Sauron are all extremely memorable characters. Memorable characters don't make for deeper lore - do you know what lore is? The characters in SW are memorable because of their unique traits - a huge man in a black suit with a mask and breathing sounds, and a little green alien man that reverses sentence structure. Lore is the preceding story, the foundation for the plot that's built in the film. LOTR had so much more mythology, history, and consideration of different groups and individuals involved. Star Wars was much more simplistic - the good guys (rebels) against the bad guys (empire). There's never any temptation to switch sides or question alliances. In LOTR, there are constant betrayals, and characters often stray from what they believed.
Your point on which story is more creative is also opinion - to that end, I disagree, it's basically a futuristic version of Nazi Germany taking over the galaxy.
Mark Hamill's Joker isn't exactly well known outside of hard core Batman fans, making Harrison Ford the only breakout star from SW. LOTR had way more talent that went on to gain fame for other work. Have you seen Pirates of the Caribbean? Or X-Men? The Incredible Hulk? The Road? The Matrix? Benjamin Button? Lost? Star Trek? They all star members of the LOTR cast. What movies have SW alums gone on to make, other than Harrison Ford? LOTR had much more famous actors, and made more careers than the SW movies.
Again, popularity is not a measure of a good movie. More people might be (we actually don't know for a fact if this is true) wearing SW costumes to Comic-Con than LOTR, but if they are it's because of excitement for Episode VII.
SW was a sci-fi action series with some mystical fantasy elements tied in, not a fantasy in the sense that LOTR is. SW was inspired by sci-fi stories like Star Trek, while LOTR was based on Tolkien's books. Look at the fantasy genre today - the biggest franchise is Game of Thrones, directly inspired (according to author George R. R. Martin) by LOTR.
As for who is writing more comments about the movies, again this is about popularity not film quality. This point is irrelevant. There is NO impact in proving that SW had a larger fan base. This is a debate over which movies are. Your arguments aren't based in fact at all, I've given numbers that show critics giving far better reviews to LOTR than SW, more awards won, higher audience approval, etc. You respond by saying "ask people to name their favorite trilogies but all across the world, people celebrate Star Wars." This has NOTHING to do with how good the movies are. LOTR is FAR from an afterthought, it's one of the most famous film franchises of all time along WITH SW. But even if it were not, that does not make it an inferior series. You give SW credit for doing things that had never been seen before on film, but the same can be said for LOTR. We have to look strictly at a side-by-side comparison of which movies are better, and you're saying SW needs a handicap (like a bad golfer) to be examined fairly. This alone is telling, and should clear up which series is better. Yes, Peter Jackson had better technology to work with than George Lucas, but Jackson is also a significantly more talented director with a more developed style and consideration for building a robust cinematic world. George Lucas had the advantage of being able to write whatever he wanted for the movies, while Jackson was interpreting 50 year old novels and couldn't break the rules of that universe. LOTR still managed to tell a more well-rounded story than SW, despite not being able to write in new elements for convenience. Think about SW: why would Luke be sent to live with relatives if he's in hiding from the empire? That's the first place they would look. Why didn't Obi-Wan keep his name Kenobi? Why does the empire keep building Death Stars with structural weaknesses that they're leaving wide open? All of these plot holes exist for convenience in story telling that Lucas used for convenience, but they actually weaken the story being told.
Star Wars was a movie phenomenon. They changed the way people watch movies, the way movies are made, and they were very good. For movies made in the late 70s and early 80s, they hold up nicely against some of the garbage that still comes out today. The Lord of the Rings just isn't among the films that Star Wars can best. The concepts are more engaging in LOTR, with complex central ideas and controversies. Star Wars movies are what you put on when you want to make some popcorn and go for a thrill ride that will give you goosebumps with some very good moments of heroism and triumph of good over evil. LOTR movies are what you put on when you want to sit back and go on an adventure, where you're fully immersed in a different world. SW is good, and a lot of fun to watch, but LOTR is one of the best film series of all time.
"This means A: More people are into Star Wars. B: Star was is more well known. - Star Wars" This is a fact. Also, once again, I'm going over more accomplishments Star Wars has clearly had over LOTR, and you are trying your hardest to dismiss that, except it's perfectly fine to say LOTR films had better ratings than SW films (which I'll get into as you read). So to me, it's clear LOTR films have no real accomplishments other than some ratings compared to all the things Star Wars is doing.
You seem to be a bigot now, and dismissing everything as "irrelevant" but your IMDb scores you posted. So apparently, you are saying LOTR is better than SW cause it had higher ratings but yet dismiss merchandise sells as irrelevant? By the way, you do know that critics are normal people right? They offer their professional opinion and thoughts, and slap a sticker on it, just because something had better ratings than something else, doesn't mean it's good. Hell, in that case, Justin Bieber would be the best singer ever, and Kanye West of just being on the top list in billboards. In your point, any Call Of Duty game is far better than lets say a Halo game or something that may have scored a point lower, or better than Kingdom Hearts. NO. They are giving their professional opinion and critique, this does NOT in any way mean something is better, but gives you more so an idea on how it could be based on the reviews. Star Wars itself has scored highly in the years, and has remained highly in the rankings ever since they released. That is showing the test of time. Only logical point you have what so ever, is that the lord of the rings won more awards perhaps, but that is all, but don't dismiss as merchandise sells, popularity as being irrelevant to the discussion as they clearly are a factor in any movie. -
I have watched all LOTR movies, and read the first book (although the book is irrelevant to the discussion). Obviously, I wouldn't be having this debate with you if I hadn't seen the films, and in my very first post, I said I liked Lord Of The Rings personally more but acknowledge Star Wars is way better. It's a matter of you refusing to read, and more so just skimming through picking and choosing what lines I write down you want to read. As for Frodo, Sam, and everyone else, who honestly talks about them when you bring up the Lord Of The Rings? Who? Little. This is a fact based on personal experience, and just web surfing all these years. No one mentions Frodo, maybe what 1 out of 10 people? You know who they are going to mention tho? GANDALF. Now go to Star Wars... Who do people talk about? Tons of characters. Nothing more than needs to be said than that. http://www.empireonline.com... Just about all 30 of these characters are constantly talked about at one point or another. Definitely the top 10 for sure, but when we talk Lord Of The Rings, you hear nothing of Frodo being mentioned.
As for comic con. It's clear that people more so dress up for SW than LOTR. I don't have to be there everyday to know. I've been there, I've seen it. You can go to youtube and see it for yourself. There is more SW pride there than anything, and to dismiss that and say to the readers of this debate "well, they're just dressing up cause their more excited for the release of Episode VII." is just not having no awareness. Star Wars is always at comic con, year in and year out. As I have said, it's made the most impact on cultures today, and well known across the globe compared to a movie series that scored better? I certainly hope LOTR scored better because the Star Wars films themselves are older movies with less technology, camera quality, and everything beyond, and yet it remains in high rankings and regarded by many to be the best original film trilogy or film series ever made.
True, popularity doesn't mean something is better, but it shows you what a majority is into. The merchandise sells, show you what the majority is into. That is SW. Again, you go on about the story, dismiss character building which is a big part of the story. Star Wars has ton of bad guys, all well known, all in high rankings of greatest film villains of all time. Again, no one talks Frodo, or the other hobbits, it's mainly Gandalf.
For what it is, some of the special effects in Lord Of The Rings sucked, and just meant for the cool factor as I've said earlier in a different post. Take for example Gandalf blowing a smoke ring at bilbo's party in Fellowship Of The Ring. Smoke cannot be made to travel horizontally, and basically shows this is just a cheap special effect, and don't act for a minute like LOTR isn't flawed because there is many bloopers to be had with that long of a film, and logic that just falls off. I know I'm on the Gandalf talk, but this will be the last thing I have to say about Gandalf. Have you wondered how the Lord Of The Rings would have done if he never came back after the first movie? I bet it wouldn't have done as well.
Peter Jackson must have had George Lucas syndromes when making the movies and it clearly shows in some parts of each film. Some will know what I mean by that and be able to see where George Lucas inspiration may have took place.
So when we talk about stories between the films, you dismiss characters building like I said but rather talk more about the plot. Star Wars at its time was the basically the first of its kind, and like I already said before, did things no film has done before. Lord Of The Rings wasn't new in the effects that it used, some effects fail completely off and just cheap. So as flashy as it may have been, doesn't mean that it wasn't flawed. Star Wars felt more alive throughout the movies and you are telling me that a the lord of the rings battle scenes is more interesting than a light show? Really? As if we haven't seen a million films before that used similar fighting techniques that Lord Of The Rings used. Don't forget, it's impossible for a woman to just slay everyone by herself (yeah that's good logic) and don't forget to mention when the films weren't peaking, they had to throw stuff in as a filler gap. Hell, the movies are longer than the books.
Yes, the Arthur devoted an incredible amount of time creating a world (which by the way isn't that unique as an interpretation of that same world could be described as heaven and hell, which those idea's isn't unique as it's been done, over the years prior to LOTR films. I want to retract back to a statement I made on the languages, and repeat that and the statement I made was that what is the point of having all these languages if the characters aren't as memorable which despite your efforts to say they are, when clearly no one discusses them but one? The movies were a little too flashy for their own good if you ask me. The Arthur's work all those years sorta was a fail in that department as it never truly paid off outside of the "wow factor" you get when you see something happen and that something looks cool. When you sit down and think about that, then you'll know and again, there was many flaws in LOTR films. Star Wars original story was original. Lord Of The Rings is PRE-WRITTEN and laid out for Peter Jackson, and again the idea of that type of warfare has been done in films before, so it honestly isn't unique.
Above all, LOTR is a good film series, it's worthy of debating if it is or isn't good as Star Wars, and both film series will be talked about for a long time to come, but IT'S NOT STAR WARS. The things Star Wars has done for the film industry and the culture it brings? It's amazing. It's a series that will stand the test of time, regardless.
Nerds, throw your life sabers up.
That is all.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.