In Reply to: Re: Hobbits WIN posted by grinagog on March 1, 2004 at 03:26:30:
But I have often seen Star Wars supporters debate and argue about their love of what is essentially "Cowboys and Indians" in space versus the grand epic(which simply means long) Lord of the Rings. The LOTR crowd argues that Star Wars is based off LOTR and is thuis weaker blah blah.To me Star Wars and the Empire Strikes Back(forget the miserable rest) were far superior to the Lord of the Rings movies for one main reason. Star Wars had the same ridiculous writing and is in the fantasy/sci fi(if you can call it that) world.
The difference is that Star Wars was a giant comic book with larger than life TONGUE firmly in cheek adventures. Not everyone likes Star Wars of course and I would not say they are masterpieces but they were cotton candy for the brain and was a good bit of silly fun. LOTR takes everything SOOO seriously and in the end is just far too distanced emotionally. Star Wars has a bit of Mel Brooksiness in there which is why Spaceballs was a wreck you can't lamopoon somehting that kinda already has it's own built in lampoon in the character of Han Solo.
Star Wars does not attempt to be serious - sure they have a constructed conflict and take you, the audience, to another world just as LOTR did. The difference is I had a good time laughing at the Star Wars absurdity and the adventura and colourfulness of characters(even if comic book deep). Lotr had the same caricture characters, the same amazing visuals of another world - but a faceless dark villain and likeable characters that have zero charisma.
Basically what saved Star Wars from suffering the same staleness and, to put it bluntly, boredom, was Harrison Ford's Han Solo. He is the wink wink nudge nudge to the audience that this is still a shwashbuckling adventure in space and isn't as serious as it leads on. The new Star Wars movie was and is SOOOOOOOOOO horrible that I shut it off half way through - CGI gimmicks instead of likeable or at least FUN characters. They're all moping around with big grandious politics that just come out laughable(not funny laughable unfortunately).
LOTR needed humour, it needed to not take itself seriously and with ~9 hours it needed some sort of character development...Lost in Translation had an hour and a half - nothing much happened and yet everything did. I can understand not liking it - we each bring our own backgrounds to the movies.
But if the LOTR films are an indication of the books I'm glad I won't be reading them.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- This is going to sound odd... - RGA 17:12:17 03/01/04 (0)