In your opinion, which is better? The original Star Wars Trilogy, or Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy?

Submitted by Absuridity_Octogon t3_yhr3p8 in movies

This question might be asked very frequently but I would like to know. It’s also completely fine if you think they shouldn’t be compared since they’re both incredible. I would like to hear peoples thoughts. In my opinion? They are both one of the best trilogies in cinema history and they are my one of my trilogies ever. Both are visual spectacles for their time with incredible characters. Imo, the battles in LOTR are far better. Probably because of the limitations of the tech at the time of the OG Star Wars, they couldn’t exactly match Peter’s fantastic army battles. So for my answer, I’d have to go with a tie since they both mean a lot to me. They should be allowed to be praised for their amazing features separately. So what’s your answer?

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Asha_Brea t1_iufag48 wrote

Lord of the Rings and it is not even a contest.

34

roto_disc t1_iufasw2 wrote

What’s better? A pizza or a cheeseburger?

It’s silly to compare incredibly different things just because they’re the same medium.

6

[deleted] t1_iufaucp wrote

I'd give it to star wars for being original. LOTR trilogy just took one of the greatest fantasy novels of all time and adapted it, honestly hard to not make something magical out of that.

−8

TheRealClose t1_iufaydn wrote

Star Wars for me is just so boring.

I think there’s some creative ideas in it and The Empire Strikes Back is a pretty decent movie. But none of them are incredible.

Every minute of LotR is incredible to me. The filmmaking is just insane, and the story is much more potent. Movies like this rarely get made.

0

RevivedHut425 t1_iufbano wrote

I think there's really no point in comparison. Completely different films made at different times with different technology, with different sources.

I enjoy the original Star Wars films more, largely because the runtime of the LOTR is just brutal. Once a movie goes past 2.5 hours I'm tuning out.

12

nicholaux t1_iufbizv wrote

Lord of the Rings is miles ahead.

3

KumaOtaku_90 t1_iufbk80 wrote

Star Wars, it was a (mostly) original idea and lore while LotR is a shining example of "If you like a movie don't read the book..."

−1

ProudOwnerOfYourFish t1_iufbka2 wrote

Star Wars will forever be one of my favorite franchises. That being said. LOTR has one more awards than there are Star Wars movies and probably shows. And in my opinions are works of art.

2

MarianaFrusciante t1_iufbzcg wrote

LOTR because of the music, the scenarios, the costumes, the well rounded story telling, the overall quality of the movie and the actors.

7

me_not_at_work t1_iufc0kc wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#358,289)

Actually, it is quite the opposite. LOTR is almost unfilmable and Peter Jackson pulled off something that was considered by many to be impossible. Star Wars was simply an updated version of an extremely common "hero journey" story.

3

Sherrdreamz t1_iufc13c wrote

Lord Of The Rings is an epic that really brought middle earth to life to the extent that even a lore savvy book Snob would appreciate. The books were better but the movies were all still pretty stellar.

6

mikeyfreshh t1_iufc4zr wrote

I don't think you can really compare them and I'm not sure why you'd want to. They were made 25 years apart on vastly different budgets with different levels of technology available. Star Wars is an original story rather than an adaptation of existing work like LotR. They're both groundbreaking blockbuster trilogies and I think it's doing both of them a disservice to try to put them against each other instead of just appreciating them for what they are

3

Stonewalled89 t1_iufcaaq wrote

Lord of the Rings. The quality is consistently high across all three movies. For Star Wars, Return of the Jedi is really good but a clear step down from the first two movies in the trilogy

21

Ohadi_Nacnud_3 t1_iufcm39 wrote

Star wars. It changed how movies were made. There were so many rip offs of it. I like LOTR story more but it did not have the same impact.

4

TravelingFlipper t1_iufcw3y wrote

With no Star Wars, LOTR probably never gets made. It paved the way. Not even a contest

−3

mikeyfreshh t1_iufd3qp wrote

Replying to Absuridity_Octogon (#358,680)

>Star Wars was an adaptation of an existing work(King Arthur) just in a different setting.

Lord of the Rings probably takes just as much from King Arthur as Star Wars does. If you wanted to accuse Star Wars of adapting anything, you could say it's just 3 or 4 Kurosawa movies mashed together and set in space

>But yes I agree they shouldn’t really be compared.

You're the one that specifically asked people to compare them

5

embarrased2Bhere t1_iufd9xt wrote

Tough question. Star Wars gave us one of the best villains in film history and tbh it was made in 1977. The fact that it’s still culturally relevant today speaks volumes. I don’t think the LOTR trilogy could be made in 1977 and have been near as successful. I’d say Star Wars but they’re both great and it all comes down to personal opinion.

9

KingBowserGunner t1_iufdxwq wrote

The extended fellowship of the ring movie is probably the best science fiction/fantasy movie ever made.

0

man-in-blacks t1_iufe1ex wrote

Lord of the rings for sure. And that sucked. Far to long 2 much walking lol they could have done with being an HR shorter.

1

CartoonEnjoyer1999 t1_iuff2y7 wrote

WHY do we have to compare 2 great trilogies and not enjoy watching them?

0

HortonHearsTheWho t1_iuff5m4 wrote

If I had to pick only one to watch for the rest of my life, it would be the Star Wars trilogy. It’s been with me my whole life and has meant so much to me over many years.

I don’t know which trilogy is “better” and don’t care to dwell on such trifling questions.

2

Hotdog_Ketchup t1_iufg6gf wrote

Lord of the Rings is a tremendous series, but Stars Wars, original and prequel trilogy, are a lot more interesting and important. But yeah there's really no need to compare the two.

−2

GraceSilverhelm t1_iufh9st wrote

LOTR is a deeper and more intricate story. All three movies were impeccably done masterpieces. The first Star Wars trilogy is more uneven, and I don't think the Return of the Jedi is at the caliber of the movies that proceeded it. (I've never been a big fan of Ewoks.) However, for sheer popcorn-chomping fun, there is almost no film existing that surpasses the delight that was A New Hope back when it was the only Star Wars we knew.

22

DoIrllyneeda_usrname t1_iufiosu wrote

The Star Wars prequel trilogy if we include The Clone Wars Show. If not, then the OG Star Wars trilogy.

0

arctofire19 t1_iufixqo wrote

I think Lord of the Rings is more consistently good throughout all three episodes.

Return of the Jedi is quite weak.

But in terms of enjoyment I have to say Star Wars. Lord of the Rings, whilst undoubtedly impressively made, is a bit too long for my personal taste.

5

qawsedrf12 t1_iufjcb6 wrote

Star Wars set the stage.

Rings perfected it

0

Cool-S4ti5fact1on t1_iufkd1t wrote

Replying to me_not_at_work (#358,570)

I am not sure about LOTR being seriously considered as "unfilmable". I think that is more of a meme than anything. Specially considering most of the movie beats and plot choices follow the exact same beats as in the LOTR cartoon from the 80s. The cartoons made all the same choices like not including Tom Bombadil, not including Barrow Wights, not including Glorfindel. Even many of the iconic scenes from the movies like the Black Riders creeping over the Hobbits over the tree trunk can be found exactly in the same way as in the cartoons, which is odd because in the books the 4 hobbits weren't huddled together when the Black Riders was there. So clearly a lot of east inspiration was taken from the cartoons.

>Star Wars was simply an updated version of an extremely common "hero journey" story.

Dune predates Star Wars, and Star Wars is basically Dune with laser swords. Dune has The Voice and Star Wars has Jedi mind powers, Dune has spice and SW has spice, Dune has noble families and politics in space and SW has the same. There's a whole bunch of other similarities.

2

All_Hail_Nimrod t1_iuflqd5 wrote

Which franchise could you condense down from a trilogy to almost a single movie?

LOTR has so much wasted, although beautiful, walking around. Let alone the extended versions. 🙄

OG Star Wars for life.

−1

Ok-Constant7759 t1_iuflu78 wrote

Lord of the Rings is better. But I'm more of a Star Wars fan

1

floyd_sw_lock9477 t1_iufmc6a wrote

Replying to roto_disc (#358,275)

But you can compare them. Both offer cheese, sauces, meat toppings etc. Both foods are handheld, unhealthy, greasy affairs that are beloved by people everywhere. It's not silly, its literally the definition of comparing.

4

TheLateHenry t1_iufnhxm wrote

I think you can also compare the two in terms of their source material: LotR is based on THE most influential series of fantasy novels, whereas Star Wars was specifically written for the movies. I love the LotR movies, but they do heavily rely on Tolkien having already laid the ground work imo. So I think Star Wars deserves some credit for just starting from nothing and still telling a captivating story.

2

fart-debris t1_iufsvks wrote

Star Wars by a country mile.

−2

ibringstharuckus t1_iufuwqj wrote

Equal. Movie 1 in both is very good. Movie 2 is the best. Movie 3 the worst with some strange decisions.

1

bobafettsmoke t1_iugecgh wrote

Both are great and don’t really need to be compared. But Star Wars is my shit.

1

bobafettsmoke t1_iugf1tw wrote

The real debate should be the original trilogies of Star Wars vs Indiana Jones

1

JRogeroiii t1_iuglcv0 wrote

For me Star Wars and it isn't even close. Star Wars is more enjoyable and you can't exaggerate how big of a leap forward it was for special effects. I was only three when New Hope came out so I don't think I saw it in the theater but I remember seeing Empire Strikes back in the movie theater. The scene with with the AT-AT's walkers on Hoth blew my mind. I'd never seen anything so cool in my life. I wish Disney plus would bring back the original films without the late 90's CGI addons. Last time I watched the movies I was struck by how the only scenes that felt dated were the ones with CGI. I think the lack of CGI is what will make the movie timeless where as LOTR is already starting to look dated.

I also not a fan of the pacing or the editing of the LOTR movies. To many scenes of Orcs running. Also feel there is to much reliance on CGI. I remember going to a party after watching Fellowship of the Rings in the theater and saying I thought it was OK. I was practically attacked. It was like I was at a Radiohead fan club meeting and said OK Computer was overrated (which it isn't Radiohead fans don't attack me). Anyway at that moment I realized my opinion was clearly in the minority and I might be full of it. For whatever reason those movies just didn't connect with me the way Star Wars did.

2

carson63000 t1_iugmmeb wrote

Replying to Absuridity_Octogon (#358,680)

That assertion stretches the meaning of the word "adaptation" far beyond breaking point, imho.

Yes Star Wars had its antecedents and influences, but it was not an "adaptation" of the King Arthur story.

3

AndiLivia t1_iugn7e2 wrote

Lotr by far. Star wars is an interesting universe but all the movies including the originals are awful.

1

Rich-Dig5303 t1_iugnhuh wrote

Most will probably disagree, but the original SW trilogy gets too much praise. There is only one great movie in there, the 1st is simply good, while the 3rd is incredibly mediocre.

1

Roncon1981 t1_iugz30v wrote

Lord of the rings from PJ. Fuller story fuller place and fuller characters

1

lostinjapan01 t1_iugzrxr wrote

I am a MASSIVE fan of both. But I have to say LOTR on this one because there is not a weak entry in the 3. Star Wars has RotJ so it does have a weak entry in the trilogy.

3

Minimum_crab t1_iuh2ia1 wrote

Lotr is towering above star wars IMO. However, star wars is quite a bit older. I do feel like Lotr has the advantage of amazing source material .

1

feryl12 t1_iuhn4a7 wrote

Lord of the Rings is the better trilogy but it’s not really a fair competition. LOTR was planned and executed as a trilogy from the start. When they were making Star Wars nobody knew if it would be a success and if they would be able to make a second one. In my opinion Star Wars had a bigger impact on the development of special effects in general but both are milestones of movie history.

1

SLAB_ROCKGROIN t1_iuhw0c8 wrote

Replying to TheLateHenry (#361,290)

Its WWII in space with most of the themes taken from older serials and japanese movies. It didnt start from nothing, it took massive inspiration from tons of stuff. Its a classic tale told multitude of times before and theres nothing wrong with that, just saying.

1

PugnaciousPangolin t1_iui5hgv wrote

I've long felt they are quite similar in quality as each film in each trilogy, for me, is Really Good, Great, and then Good.

1

No_Assumption9524 t1_iuir149 wrote

Great, now I wanna do another moviemarathon - thanks alot!

1

ProGamerHD_13 t1_iuja75z wrote

They're too different to compare. (Thebonly thing in common is that they're both trilogies)

The impact of Star Wars on the Sci Fi genre can't be ignored but I'd say the LOTR had a much bigger impact on movies in general.

1

Chen_Geller t1_iujvmrs wrote

>This question might be asked very frequently but I would like to know. It’s also completely fine if you think they shouldn’t be compared since they’re both incredible. I would like to hear peoples thoughts. In my opinion? They are both one of the best trilogies in cinema history and they are my one of my trilogies ever. Both are visual spectacles for their time with incredible characters.

They should and shouldn't be compared.

They're both, principally, fantasy trilogies: The Lord of the Rings is high fantasy, Star Wars is space fantasy. They're both cyclical; i.e. they by and large tell a single story across three entries, as compared to something more anthological like Indiana Jones or even Marvel.

Having said that, there are also huge differences: Star Wars was made one film at a time, three years apart, with different creatives coming in and out, and notably with a big budget spike after the first film, which largely functions as a standalone vignette. Many of the story choices made across the trilogy were late-in-the game retcons, including (but not limited to) the pivotal reveal in The Empire Strikes Back. By comparison, The Lord of the Rings is ostensibly one film exhibited in three parts.

As a result, I'd say The Lord of the Rings has the advantage of uniformity: all three films feel cut from the same cloth and genuine continuations of each other, while The Empire Strikes Back feels - in scope, style, tone and plot - a total break from the world of the original film. Its also more uniform in quality: The Empire Strikes Back tends to be people's pick for the best of three Star Wars films, and Return of the Jedi is pretty consistently voted the worst. The Lord of the Rings is much harder to draw such distinctions, precisely because its pretty much one film in three parts.

I'm sure people in this thread will point out that Star Wars was more avant-garde for special effects and more influential. That's all true, but I think films should be evaluated first and foremost by what they make us feel as individuals when we watch them over how influential they are on cinema history. Ultimately, you have to sit down and watch it!

I pick The Lord of the Rings.

3

Chen_Geller t1_iujxhlx wrote

Replying to SLAB_ROCKGROIN (#382,527)

Star Wars kinda of changed through the script drafts. At some points, it was very deeply indebted to Edgar Rice Burroughs, at other points it was more indebted to Kurosawa, but some of those influences kind of got watered down as the scripts were worked on.

I would say the biggest influences on Star Wars were, by descending order of significance, Flash Gordon, EE Smith's Galactic Patrol, Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress, and Edgar Rice Burroughs A Princess of Mars.

There are other influences like Dune, a whole bunch of World War II movies and, would you imagine, Tolkien's The Hobbit, but they're much more minor.

2

Chen_Geller t1_iujy2t4 wrote

Replying to feryl12 (#379,730)

>When they were making Star Wars nobody knew if it would be a success

That's to some extent a story Lucasfilm love to taut around "It was the little engine that could!" but its not quite like that. Yeah, it was risky. But it was also a big, fantastical blockbuster, coming on the heels of Jaws, by a star filmmaker whose last film was a huge hit with multiple academy award nominations.

Lucas had talked about two sequels and a possible prequel already in December 1975, and had taken some concrete steps towards making them including signing the actors and some of the crew for two more films in advance.

But yeah, he didn't bother fleshing out the plot for those potential sequels until he got around to making them: Star Wars was made very much one film at a time and as a result is full of inconsitences and retcons.

5

Chen_Geller t1_iujykin wrote

Replying to qawsedrf12 (#360,290)

I don't see The Lord of the Rings as following in Star Wars footsteps too much except that they're both trilogies that use cutting-edge special effects.

Cinematically, The Lord of the Rings owes much more to Braveheart.

1

Chen_Geller t1_iujz06j wrote

Replying to mikeyfreshh (#358,603)

> They were made 25 years apart on vastly different budgets with different levels of technology available. Star Wars is an original story rather than an adaptation of existing work like LotR.

There's a lot of truth to this. And they were made by filmmakers with starkly different styles and predilictions.

2

Chen_Geller t1_iujzcny wrote

Replying to ProGamerHD_13 (#398,242)

>I'd say the LOTR had a much bigger impact on movies in general.

As someone who prefers The Lord of the Rings, I would actually say this isn't true. I think if we talk in terms of influence, Star Wars had been incomprably more influential. Even fantasy films more often remind me of Star Wars than of The Lord of the Rings.

The Lord of the Rings was just too gigantic and sui generis.

2