Parallels Between LotR and SW

You forgot the best one... Middle-earth in Elvish is Endor.

As in.. Et Earello Endorenna Utulien.

!snap

 

None...

Well I can imagine people seeing friendship and passion in those films, I did not.

GL never told LotR was THE inspiration for his saga. In fact serials like Flash Gordon and other 30ies Sci-Fi shows were more of an inspiration for WARS than Rings was.

The problem with rings IMO is that it lacks a really evil character. Sauron... Well it is just an eye, has no face. Saruman? Dunno, there was never anything special about him. The Nazgul (sp?)? Cool idea, but not enough screentime.

Whereas WARS has tons of memorable evil characters:
The Emperor - The (D)Evil! The snake from the book Genesis. Turns heroes into villains!
Darth Maul - ask his fans why they like him, he is just cool.
Jango Fett - again coolness pure
Count Dooku - a charming and gentleman like leader, but cold as the ice of Hoth
General Grievous - what an awesome enemy, memorable and unique
Darth Vader - central character of the saga (note he IS A BAD GUY, not a good one! ), best antagonist in movie history
Boba Fett - clone of his father , again pure coolness.
Jabba - ugly but nevertheless a classic

 

One of the parallels I see is that the Hero of the OT, Luke, and the Hero of LOTR, Frodo, don't actually succeed in destroying evil themselves.

It is rather the "villains" that accomplish this goal: Gollum falling into the lava with the ring, and Vader destroying the Emperor.

Just before Gollum/Vader destroy the "evil", both Luke and Frodo have somewhat failed: Luke will surely die at the hands of the Emperor, and Frodo is completely seduced by the power of the ring and refuses to destroy it.

Neither villain has the actual goal to destroy evil: Gollum is thrilled to have the ring and accidently falls in the lava; Vader is more concerned about saving Luke than destroying the Emperor (well, this last statement could be debated).

 

this post was so absurd that i felt compelled to reply. by your logic, Thad, i could take every fantasy book off the shelf and draw numerous parallels to them all.

this is the only similarity

no, frodo was an example of what "the little guy" was capable of, the unlikely hero. he wasnt a great warrior, nor a general of his people, just an average guy. luke on the other hand may start out as an average guy but he was always destined to be a powerful warrior - an aragorn character.

the dark riders are petty lackeys and they know it. whilst maul, dooku and anakin are ultimately lackeys of the emperor i am sure they did not think of themselves as lackeys. aside from that frodo is not a jedi type character

these two characters are similar in that they are both the head honchos of the side of evil. your comparison is...weird. sauron is not a corporeal character and says nothing yet his presence is felt and inferred throughout the story. the emperor is very much flesh and blood and says plenty in the movies.

any good storyteller will tell you that this is a process you go through when telling the story. having backstories allows you to enrich the story you want to tell as well as explain why characters are the way that they are. i dont think georges 40 pages of prequel stuff quite compares to tolkien's biblesque silmarillion.

thats strange, i was always led to believe that this was a racial thing. elves and dwarves shared no love for each other and their friendship grew out of respect for each other, putting each others lives in their hands and finally putting aside the elf/dwarf thing and accepting each other as friends, as equals.

sith ruled the galaxy as many and ultimately destroyed themselves. sauron was the man in power and was defeated by the heroes

dooku deceived the other star systems to join his cause, sauron bullied them into it and ultimately it was the palantir that stirred both denethor and saruman to draw their own conclusions. these two both lacked the courage to stand against evil, one of them chose to join sauron whilst the other wallowed in pity and inaction. this is not a valid similarity as dooku deceived hundreds of sytems and achieved the same desired outcome with each and saruman and denethor were but two, each with a different outcome.

the characters of anakin and saruman cannot be compared, however dooku and saruman can. their story is almost identical

the march of the ents was inspired by mothernature fighting back over the industrialised world. both ideas were inspired by diferent events so its a stretch to call them a similarity

 

None...

Well I can imagine people seeing friendship and passion in those films, I did not.

GL never told LotR was THE inspiration for his saga. In fact serials like Flash Gordon and other 30ies Sci-Fi shows were more of an inspiration for WARS than Rings was.

The problem with rings IMO is that it lacks a really evil character. Sauron... Well it is just an eye, has no face. Saruman? Dunno, there was never anything special about him. The Nazgul (sp?)? Cool idea, but not enough screentime.

Whereas WARS has tons of memorable evil characters:
The Emperor - The (D)Evil! The snake from the book Genesis. Turns heroes into villains!
Darth Maul - ask his fans why they like him, he is just cool.
Jango Fett - again coolness pure
Count Dooku - a charming and gentleman like leader, but cold as the ice of Hoth
General Grievous - what an awesome enemy, memorable and unique
Darth Vader - central character of the saga (note he IS A BAD GUY, not a good one! ), best antagonist in movie history
Boba Fett - clone of his father , again pure coolness.
Jabba - ugly but nevertheless a classic


Sorry, but I truly disagree with this. I don't think any LOTR characters get up to Vader's level, but there are many memorable ones - and it is just a time factor that makes the SW ones more so. And btw, Jango, Maul, Greivous, Boba, Jabba - are they really that memorable??

Obviously, characters are more memorable if you are a fan of the film. Since we are all Star Wars fans, we would find the above memorable - however LOTR fans would find characters memorable as well.

Sauron - This really is just a figurehead, who does not do much fighting or speaking himself. But neither does the Emperor in the OT, so therefore I can still list him here ... he turns heroes into villains and brings darkness into the world!

Saruman - The Count Dukoo figure, the one who thinks that he will gain everything from siding with Sauron, but obviously Sauron does nothing to help him after his citadel is flooded, and predictably would have killed him after he had taken over Middle Earth.

The Witch King - The suited evil figure, with his deadly bomby-knocker (I know there is a better name for this but I can't think of it right now) - his whispering voice - "You fool - no man can slay me.. Die now!" Anyway, he is just cool!

Gollum - Its a pity JarJar wasn't done this well. A marvel in special effects, but still containing a large phycological output, and complex characteristics, and some very funny dialogue..

The Mouth of Sauron - Don't use the film version. Use the BOOK version. An incredibly memorable part of ROTK.

Ok, I am now going to bring back to the connection part. Something that no-one has mentioned yet is the redemption aspect. In Star Wars obviously Darth Vader is redeemed, however villain in LOTR is offered redemption. Gollum is given a chance by Frodo, Saruman is offered redemption when captured by the Hobbits (in the novel), so is Wormtongue, Boromir and even the Witch king!

 

Parallels Between LotR and SW

- Both series have swept the critics' year-end awards: LOTR is on every rightminded film critic's "best-ten" list, whilst the SW prequels occupy a spot on every sensible film critic's "worst-ten" list.

- Peter Jackson, director of LOTR, and George Lucas, director of PT, have each made some of the worst SFX films of all time: Jackson with The Frighteners, and Lucas with the PT.

- Both Jackson and Lucas use "top-end" effects houses on their films: one of them (WETA) is actually competent.

- Jackson and Lucas are both directors; one is also a filmmaker.

- Both series have also swept the prestigious year-end awards: LOTR has cleaned-up at the Academy Awards, whilst the PT has swept the Razzies.

- Jackson and Lucas both write screenplays; however, only one of them does so successfully.

- The LOTR and PT are positioned on extreme points of the critical scale: the former is universally lauded, whilst the latter is universally panned.

- Both series have been financially successful, but only LOTR has won favor with the public.

 

Saruman in fact is Count Dooku.
Saruman at first is known as Saruman the White a wise wizard, but after being seduced by the One Ring he becomes Saruman the Many Colored.
Count Dooku is a Jedi who's allegiance with the Republic is broken by the death of his pupil Qui-Gon Jinn he's then lured by the Dark Side to become Darth Tyranus.

And you could say that General Grievous reflects the Witch King of Angmar.

-S-

 

Saruman in fact is Count Dooku.
Saruman at first is known as Saruman the White a wise wizard, but after being seduced by the One Ring he becomes Saruman the Many Colored.
Count Dooku is a Jedi who's allegiance with the Republic is broken by the death of his pupil Qui-Gon Jinn he's then lured by the Dark Side to become Darth Tyranus.

Also, Saruman & Dooku both get killed off early in the third film.

 

Not really a point of comparision, but one of the things that truly shows the greatness of the OT is the number of main characters who are remembered by name amongst people who have only seen the movies once or twice (even many who have never seen them at all): Luke, Han, Leia, Obi-Wan, Yoda, Vader, Chewie, R2, 3PO, Jabba-I'd venture to say that a vast majority of the American public knows who these figures are (many, though not most would know Palpatine, Bobba Fett, Lando, etc). For the US public at large to remember 10 characters from any one movie or series of movies is a rare, if not unprcedented feat. I'd doubt that a similar majority of moviegoers would remember Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Gandalf, Sauron, Sauraman, Boromir, and Theoden; or any other combination of 10 LOTR figures. I don't think any other movie/series of movies has the same high-profile and universal presence as the OT.

 

There are actually a ton of morals and values in LotR. Racism is a large issue, first the comming together or Gimli and Legolas. For the casual reader/viewer it's not that apparent because we see an elf and a dwarf, not a white man and a black man, but in their world its the same, and their friendship shows how people can become stronger if they work together. Secondly is, as someone said, is how a team is stronger than a sole individual. Lastly, is pure selflessness. Aragorn is the heir to be king, the most powerfull human, and the leader of, well, everyone(excluding Galdalf of course). In the end, what does he do though? He throughs his life away, making it utterly meaningles, for the greater good. What I mean is, he leads himself and his troops to death to be nothing more than pawns to distract Sauron while Frodo sneaks into mount doom. Yes, they end up living, but that wasn'tpart of the plan really, and didn't even seem possible to them.

Flash Gordon end etc never had influence of Star Wars, as far as the story goes. Their influence was in how it was to be filmed and told. While LotR was never THE inspiration, there are no doubt parts that influenced George. George used a lot of the great epic and fantasy books for influence, and LotR is one of them, and was at the time LotR was the second most read book in the world next to the bible. No doubt there was at least a tiny influence then. There's also similarities since both Lucas and Tolkien were influenced by the same things. Tolkien was of course well versed in old mythology, and Lucas read lots of mythology for influence. So, certain thigns here and there probably influenced them both, giving some similarity.

The eye aspect is something that is actual incredibly evil...just not on film. On film its hard to get across, but LotR wasn't intended to be a film. It's a book, and in a book it's a perfect concept, because you can describe anything and not actualy have to worry about making an actual visual, the reader can put their own picture in their heads, because of that Sauron works incredibly well in the books. As well, it's the concept of Sauron that's truely evil. You can't see him, and what man fears most is what he can not see.

Uhhhh, only 2 of those are really memorable, and will make a difference in the great scheme of things. Those 2 being the emporer and Darth Vader. Dooku will never be able to have the same mainstream influence like Vader did. Vader is known to everyone, even people who haven't seen Star Wars. The emporer as well to an extent. Grievous, well, he's probably the least known there, and wasn't very memorable either. Boba Fett, ok yes, popular character, but Jango? Jango was just a re-hash of Boba to please the hardcore Fett fans. Jabba.....ok, Jabba has his moments as well, I'll give

 

Ok, I've actually made a post elsewhere here that shows in depth the incredible similarities between Gandalf and Obi-wan. I completely agree on that. Read my post in this thread: http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=20234495&start=20238632

I agree a little less on this. While that basic idea is the same, Frodo and Luke are vastly different people. Frodo for instance never had any of the ego Luke had in his wanting to be a jedi. As well, Frodo bascally thought he was going to die on his quest, Luke never had that in the beginning(near the end that's a different story of course).

No, quite different. The Nazgul are more like the emporers guards. They're not all powerfull, they're simply Saurons servants. The Sith lords on the otherhand are their own masters.

The emporer is in 5 of the 6 movies. Excluding when he's senator Palpatine, he's in TPM talkign with Nute and Maul, in AotC with Dooku, unveils himself in RotS, talks with Vader in ESB, and has a large role on RotS.

Silmarillion was written before, during, and after LotR. Silmarillion is his main story, his Bible or Karon of middle earth if you will. The LotR is a story taking place during that, and it always has been. Unlike George who went back to make a PT, Tolkien already had the Simlarillion started before LotR, and even before the Hobbit, and he worked on it until his death.

I'd say R2 and 3PO are more like Merry and Pippin. They never really had to overcome some difference to become freinds in the end, they were just always together.

Doesn't need alluding to, it's part of the history, plain and simple. The sith ruled at one point, just like Morgoth rules at one point.

Mmmmmm, no. Denethor more so goes mad, which is his downfall. Saruman as well never actually joins Sauron for real. Saruman acts like he's joining Sauron, but really just is faking so that he can overthrough Sauron and become the ultimate power himself.....ok, so I'll admit, that is rather Sith like of Saruman.

Slight similarity, but Anakin betrays in order to try and save those he loves, Saruman leaves because of his greed to have ultimate power.

Just look at the ents. Firstly, their big and strong. There is no real "wow, how did they manage to win" contriversy like with the Ewoks. It's quite plainly obvious that they have strength and could overthrough Isenguard

 

The second in command of all evil is related to Harry Potter/Luke Skywalker.

Sirius Black=Harry's godfather. Darth Vader= Luke's father.

Sirius Black is second of all evil after Voldemort, and Vader is second after the Emperor.

The second in command of all evil (Sirius Black/Vader) is really good, and redeems himself at the end of the THIRD chapter of the series (ROTJ, Prisoner of Azkaban).

I don't know whether this is intentional or not. I think J.K. Rowling may be a plagiarist. I think our beloved Star Wars has spawned blatant imitations. LOL.

So...

Luke Skywalker=Harry Potter
Han Solo=Ron Weasley
Princess Leia=Hermione Granger
Anakin/Vader=Sirius Black (related to protagonist's father, somehow. Redeems himself during THIRD chapter of series.)
Obi-Wan Kenobi=Albus Dumbledore
Chewbacca=Hagrid
Voldemort=Palpatine/Sidious
Uncle Owen/Aunt Beru=Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia
Jar Jar Binks= any annoying character who will be disposed of sooner or later.

 

I had just borrowed a book from my local public library. It's a book called J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century by Professor Tom Shippey (who also appears in the documentary features on the Extended Edition DVDs of the Lord Of The Rings movie trilogy). There's a chapter in it that deals with Tolkien's concepts of evil, and it struck me that there were many parallels between Shippey's view of the Ringwraiths and George Lucas's conception of the Dark Side of the Force and the Sith Lords.
For example, Shippey describes the process of how one becomes a "wraith":

This is a good way of describing Anakin's transformation from Jedi Knight to Sith Lord. Palpatine offers to teach Anakin the power of the Dark Side and to share his knowledge, and Anakin ultimately accepts not because he wants to become evil, but in the name of the "cause" of "saving" Padme. I'm sure that becoming a Sith started out simply as a means to an end for Anakin, and that he felt he had no other choice (having just helped to destroy Mace Windu and believing he had blown any chance he had at being a Jedi). But Anakin's anger and lust for power ultimately superseded any concern he had for Padme's well-being in the end, and he lost Padme as a consquence.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this matter...?

 

Responses from my original thread, Sith Lords, the Dark Side, and Tolkien's "wraithing process"

 

Siruis Black never was evil and he was never a part of Voldermort's death eaters.

Jar Jar = Dobby the house elf

 

I don't have anything elaborate, but here's one parallel:

Christopher Lee telling his old comrade that he "must join him".

 

The Quest structure and the 'Hero's Journey' raises up a hero from among the commoners and sets him to be some kind of saviour, a world-changer. In these two sagas, the protagonists become heroes in two different ways. In Star Wars, the hero is Warrior. In Lord of the Rings, the hero is World Redeemer. Anakin departs into the netherworld of the force, Frodo sails with the elves from the Gray Havens and disappears into history.

Though both heroes had quests to carry out, the nature of each quest was different and caused each individual to come into his heroic status in a way best suited to his quest. The ultimate goal, according to Joseph Campbell, of any quest is the "flow of life back into the body of the world." He asserts that at the core of myth is a commonality of need, that the world is missing something that the hero will somehow return to it through his quest, directly or indirectly. This is evident in both Star Wars and LOTR. In one, Anakin is to bring the force back into balance which will prevent the evil of the Sith ruling the Galaxy. The other is about a hero's journey in destroying a ring that will grant the antagonists such a great power that middle-earth will live in constant fear and persecution.

It, for me, is the Hero's Journey that is at the centre of both sagas. The Hero Journey is subconsciously familiar to anyone who has ever heard the Greek myths, the fairy tales, or picked up a book and read of a simple man who gets to go on an extraordinary adventure. Maybe it is the hope inside most of us that we are worthy of being caught up in a journey, if the hero came out of obscurity just as any one of us could and was given a chance that he took. Refusing the call to adventure seems unthinkable in these stories. Perhaps, by telling and re-telling the tales of these quests, and allowing the following that both stories have built to persist and grow, we and those who come after us will recognize the Call to Adventure when we hear it, and accept it, and go on to adventures of our own.

 

^^^^^
I really hate to be a pest, but what about my comparison between the "wraithing process," described by Tolkien biographer Tom Shippey, and the psychological journey toward the Dark Side (taken by both Dooku and Anakin)?

 

Actually, Endor is originally from the Old Testament. Some king (I can't remember which) goes to visit the Witch of Endor in order to learn whether he'll be victorious or not in battle. I believe he learns he'll be killed, a prophecy which later turns out to be right.

 

Not really a prallel, but:

Lord of the Rings - product of Ph.D; Star Wars - product of LSD

 

..........

I really hate to be a pest, but what about my comparison between the "wraithing process," described by Tolkien biographer Tom Shippey, and the psychological journey toward the Dark Side (taken by both Dooku and Anakin)?:

I had just borrowed a book from my local public library. It's a book called J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century by Professor Tom Shippey (who also appears in the documentary features on the Extended Edition DVDs of the Lord Of The Rings movie trilogy). There's a chapter in it that deals with Tolkien's concepts of evil, and it struck me that there were many parallels between Shippey's view of the Ringwraiths and George Lucas's conception of the Dark Side of the Force and the Sith Lords.
For example, Shippey describes the process of how one becomes a "wraith":

This is a good way of describing Anakin's transformation from Jedi Knight to Sith Lord. Palpatine offers to teach Anakin the power of the Dark Side and to share his knowledge, and Anakin ultimately accepts not because he wants to become evil, but in the name of the "cause" of "saving" Padme. I'm sure that becoming a Sith started out simply as a means to an end for Anakin, and that he felt he had no other choice (having just helped to destroy Mace Windu and believing he had blown any chance he had at being a Jedi). But Anakin's anger and lust for power ultimately superseded any concern he had for Padme's well-being in the end, and he lost Padme as a consquence.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this matter...?

 

Most similarities are superficial unless otherwise proven. Though that's not a slur. All the examples of symbolism I and others have been coming out with in the Revenge of the Sith thread, for example, are also superficial.

But I'm jumping ahead. Even the word "superficial" needs context. And that context is: the similarities should be considered superficial to the extent that we cannot know if Lucas consciously drew on given elements of Lord of the Rings or not (though some he apparently did: see below). However, none of the similarities need be superficial to you. If your mind makes those links and sees those patterns, then the similarities are, in some way, REAL. Just as the symbolism I and others have come out with in the RotS thread is real to us. Art is an abstraction of reality; an intricate conceptual model of the world. What an individual takes from it is his or her business. In fact, I think we MUST draw our own messages from it.

Here's an interesting page:

http://www.jitterbug.com/origins/lotr.html

I take it at least some of you are familiar with it - though I was surprised not to see it linked to already. For all those Jitter Bug virgins, enjoy!

 

Hi folks! This is a re-post of a topic that got locked down due to the fact that this thread already existed.

I am writing this essentially, as a comparison between Star Wars and Lord of the Rings as far as characters with amazing powers go, particularly as a comparison between the main villains and dark lords, Darth Sidious and Sauron, respectively.

I have seen the analogies made, several times, in Star Wars discussions about Darth Sidious, by comparing him to Sauron, especially when power levels have been discussed. It is occasionally argued that Sauron is way stronger than any good guy in his series, so Sidious should be as well. And indeed, a very powerful main villain whom nobody can stand up to, can occasionally be a truly compelling.

But I still think the analogy is missing one very important point. Sidious is human. Sauron isn't. For those of you who are not deeply familiar with Arda (Tolkien's Fantasy world), Sauron is a so called Maia, which might best be described as a Tolkien equivalent of an angel in religious belief. That is, a very mighty spirit who was once in the service of the one God, Eru. As such, Sauron isn't subject to any of the limitations of being human. He is immortal and superhuman. In the Star Wars franchise, there are no superhuman species. There are non-humans, to be sure, but these species are just different than humans, not all around superior the way Maiar would be. This means that, although some characters have become immensely strong compared to the average being in the galaxy by tapping into the Force, they are ultimately just human (or equivalent thereof). It doesn't take 100 blaster cannon shots to kill a Jedi once they hit. Like any other character, even the most powerful Force user could theoretically (if exremely unlucky to be sure, but still), be killed with a single blaster pistol shot.
Sauron, as I said, is a Maia. An immortal superhuman. As are the Wizards and all Balrogs (there were more than one, once). What is more is that Sauron is also one of the greatest Maiar ever, and thus surpassed only by the Valar, which is basically just a greater version of the Maiar (there were fifteen Valar, initially). As such, his powers would be way stronger than those of lesser beings, both the Free Peoples (elves, men, drarwes and hobbits) and lesser Maiar. That is why he is so strong in Lord of the Rings.
I cannot see how Sidious woutopic,ld have an equivalent advantage against ordinary, human beings. At the end of the day, Sidious is a human with very fancy powers, but not an angelic, superhuman being. I therefore find the notion that he should be (relatively speaking to other characters in his story) as strong as Sauron to be a bit off.

Don't get me wrong! I am not saying Sidious is a wimp. Absolutely not. He is probably the strongest in the saga, all around. I mean, no other beings in Star Wars are demigodlike, either, and Sidious' Force powers are the best and his lightsaber skills are on par with those of the greatest of the Jedi. However, I have seen the notion presented that the strongest good guys (Yoda and Mace) would not even be close to Sidious in power being raised in Star Wars debates. That is absurd, and impossible to support. They are close. The dark side gives a bit more offensive power, but with master Jedi defenses, there are ways to deal with this. And other than a few very distinct offensive advantages the darksiders have in the ways they can use the Force in combat, the best lightsiders are really on Sidious' level.
On the other hand, maybe Lucas made a bad call to have lightning stoppable. Maybe it is a power not even the greatest Jedi should be able to block. I think dark side fans in general would find it great if the dark side could bring on an offensive power that couldn't be blocked. But that decision was made for Episode II already. It was expected that Sidious' lightning was more difficult to block than Dooku's, but if Dooku's lightning blocked, it was reasonable to think Sidious' could, too, even though the minimum Force power requirement would

 

One paralell, but very crealy-
Little boy from forgotten land meets old menthor and goes for a way to rescure the world.

 

sw is absolutely indeniably blatantly based upon lotr,luke was originally a midget(insert pc term)the comparisons are too numerous to mention-then again,what didnt george rip off/play homage to?