View Full Version : Star Wars vs. Lord of the Rings
yohojones
11-28-2006, 02:06 AM
Clerks 2 is coming out on DVD right away...
My vote is for Star Wars even though the story has been neutered.
bird603568
11-28-2006, 02:13 AM
the original star wars win hands down
dangerboy1718
11-28-2006, 02:24 AM
I grew up reading Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit and everything Tolken wrote including things by his son. I like the Star Wars movies but they don't grab me as much as seeing the Lord of the Rings. Granted I do love lots of the books for Star Wars which have helped to flesh out a lot of the history.
mormonrage
11-28-2006, 03:40 AM
If LotR had been two, two hour movies, it would have had a chance. As it stands, 45 minutes of dorks running along the hillsides kills its chances. And it has no muppets. Muppets, mother****ers!
viscountradu
11-28-2006, 03:47 AM
what about the REAL trilogies? -- Back to the Future and Evil Dead.
satori
11-28-2006, 03:58 AM
if we're talking movies then Star Wars wins hands down, if we're talking books then I'd say it's easily LOTR.
fluxcapacitor
11-28-2006, 04:05 AM
LOTR's infinitely better. Star Wars is the most overrated piece of shit ever made.
avcabob
11-28-2006, 04:17 AM
I'm going with LOTR simply because I just don't find Star Wars entertaining.
jackstrap
11-28-2006, 04:28 AM
the most overrated piece of shit ever made.Both are. One is too freakn long and the other too many lights going off.
big-doze
11-28-2006, 05:28 AM
It's Star Wars. It'll always be Star Wars. I don't care what kind of crap they put out after the fact (although, to be fair, Sith wasn't that bad), the mythos is more powerful than the Death Star.
I love LoTR, the movies are epic and wonderful, the world and the characters are rich and lovely. But it's Star Wars.
Laser swords win every time. Sorry.
sloppybunny
11-28-2006, 05:33 AM
what about the REAL trilogies? -- Back to the Future and Evil Dead.
Actually I'm all about the back to the future trilogies. Between the two though, I would say Star Wars. Both over rated, but Star Wars is infinetly more charming. I found lord of the rings boring, not because they were bad films, just really not made for sloppybunny.
ryudo
11-28-2006, 05:43 AM
LOTR easy
but Back to the Future beats them both.
satansmagichat
11-28-2006, 07:37 AM
"Short people got,
no reason, got
no reason to live."
briangilmore
11-28-2006, 08:23 AM
I for one think I like oranges better than I like apples...
ariastar
11-28-2006, 08:29 AM
It seems a requirement to claim that Star Wars was the best ever to be a geek. But I still say LotR.
vegasgeek
11-28-2006, 08:34 AM
Star Wars all the way. I mean sure LoTR movies are good...you know, if you like to sit in one spot for almost 4 hours, waiting for them to get to the point.
masherscf
11-28-2006, 01:02 PM
Why is this even an argument? As movies, the original STAR WARS trilogy and the LOTR trilogy are virtually uncomparable. They both represent equal achievements in their own day. Both are landmark moments in film making. Both enjoyed financial success. the Star Wars Trilogy grosses 1.060 Billion. LOTR grossed 1.034 billion. Both trilogies established their directors as big names.
However, as literary works, "Lord of the Rings" and middle earth represent a far richer creation than "Star Wars" and it's accompanying universe. That statement is not fan boy hype, it is fact.
soundwave2-0
11-28-2006, 01:14 PM
star wars > lotr
lucas < jackson
back to the future > star wars + lotr
mal > han
masherscf
11-28-2006, 01:22 PM
star wars > lotr
lucas < jackson
back to the future > star wars + lotr
mal > han
You have to respect an argument that just uses inequalities.
soundwave2-0
11-28-2006, 01:30 PM
You have to respect an argument that just uses inequalities.
i just know them as less than or greater than marks. i also remember which one is which because "the alagator tries to eat the big one".
=0)
masherscf
11-28-2006, 01:39 PM
i just know them as less than or greater than marks. i also remember which one is which because "the alagator tries to eat the big one".
=0)
*Sigh*
The symbols < and > denote a positional relationship on the real number line.
A<B "A is less than B" means that A lies to the left of B on the real number line.
A>B "A is greater than B" means that A lied to the right of B on the real number line.
Ironically, < > don't really indicate the actual "size" of the number. Although consistent for positive numbers, the metric of "size" of a number is called absolute value. Therefore, when the alligator encounters two distinct negative numbers, he'll actually eat the smaller number.
soundwave2-0
11-28-2006, 01:46 PM
*Sigh*
The symbols < and > denote a positional relationship on the real number line.
A<B "A is less than B" means that A lies to the left of B on the real number line.
A>B "A is greater than B" means that A lied to the right of B on the real number line.
Ironically, < > don't really indicate the actual "size" of the number. Although consistent for positive numbers, the metric of "size" of a number is called absolute value. Therefore, when the alligator encounters two distinct negative numbers, he'll actually eat the smaller number.
you and your fancy book learnin
masherscf
11-28-2006, 03:00 PM
you and your fancy book learnin
One of the trivial things about having a Ph.D. in that you're admissible in court as a expert in the subject. That means I'm better than even Wikipedia.
soundwave2-0
11-28-2006, 03:08 PM
One of the trivial things about having a Ph.D. in that you're admissible in court as a expert in the subject. That means I'm better than even Wikipedia.
Well Mr. PH.D, Don't you mean "an expert"...not "a expert"?
Use an in place of a when it precedes a vowel sound.
=0p
Wikipedia FTW!
masherscf
11-28-2006, 03:32 PM
Well Mr. PH.D, Don't you mean "an expert"...not "a expert"?
Use an in place of a when it precedes a vowel sound.
=0p
Wikipedia FTW!
Well, I'm not a expert in fancified spellin..