It depends. In terms of world-building, I would definitely give that to Lord of the Rings. In terms of characters and themes, though, I'd go with Star Wars. Lord of the Rings has lots of majestic set pieces and a very well-developed, beautifully composed world, but its characters fall a bit flat for me. They're not very dynamic and it's here that I'm left feeling a bit cold. Star Wars, though, is (in my opinion) thematically richer with better drawn characters. This might be because I've alway gotten the sense (at least, this has been my impression) that the Lord of the Rings feels a bit like a historical epic while Star Wars is more of a modern myth. I think it's easier to inject themes in a mythic tale than one that has more of an aura of history.
I enjoyed Lord of the Rings but I prefer Star Wars. Reason one, it has cooler characters, Lightsabers, cooler buildings, and Star Destroyers. Actually I prefer Lord of the Rings in book form.
I like LOTR but it has nothing on Star Wars. Star Wars has a much better vibe, more epic story, better characters, and better music. LOTR is good but I rarely find myself wanting to watch them. I usually feel like watching one of or all of the Star Wars movies every few weeks or couple of months.
See what I said on last page, asking Star Wars vs Lord of the Rings on a Star Wars fan site ends up with predictable results. Last year on The Huffington Post website Lord of the Rings won this exact same question by 55% of the vote.
it'as amazing how few realise that LOTR created modern fantasy and nearly every major fantasy story over the 20th Century to the present borrows from it, either directly or indirectly And I say this as someone who isn't really a LOTR fan but in terms of story telling LOTR is the book of books for fantasy and if we're going by what has better music Roger and Hammerstein has them both beat...
But that actually dosent matter because of todays society, LoTR could in a matter of fact easily have won if you count in the new movies. I mean they were recorded in 5k pic. That is pretty awesome so i hope that people see past the new ones and look in to what really matters: The originals!!!!!! -True story
New movies? 5k pic? Originals? I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. What's it got to do with anecdotes about blatant forum bias?
To me the LOTR films disqualified themselves because they're adaptation of a book The Lord Of The Ring written by J.R.R Tolkien that is more complex and detailled than actually proposed by the films. Therefore comparison between the two as which films are better seems biased for Star Wars isn't an adaption. It comes from scenarios entirely imagined an created by Lucas and not from a great author and successful books as are the scenerios of LOTR and The Hobbit. I think it would be more suitable to compare movies that are based on novels such as the LOTR movies with those of Harry Potter for instance. And for exemple SW vs Star Trek as films that are originally created.
What ever dude... I'm just saying that LOTR are good but star wars are better. And that it dosent matter if you do it in a sw forum or in the toilet. 5k pics= good movie quality
Not voting since they are too different to compare imo and i enjoy both way too much to make a choice.
WTF is a 5K pic? You aren't explaining yourself at all. And how can you say that SW is better no matter what when I linked to a site without a visual bias where LotR won the vote by a 10% margin? Your logic makes so little sense it's painful. As I said before, asking this question on a Star Wars forum seems like you aren't actually after other people's opinions but more a validation of your own, especially as you claim this is all over trying to win an argument with your brother. The fact you threw a hissy fit when people voted LotR says it all. Opinion is a highly subjective matter, and you shouldn't be looking to prove yours right by comparing it to other people's.
They're really in different niches with different demographics. Star Wars, more easily consumed, for me. Although the (generally acclaimed) Eragon books have been criticised as being too derivative of both Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. So LotR environment (tall, beautiful, super-civilized vegetarian elves, dragons, magic) SW themes (rebellion movement, family as enemy, raised by uncle and aunt, a new hope, last of the line).
The Hobbit is recorde with 5 k pixels witch means that the movie quality almost is unnaturally good. Ansthen i sayed that for me it dosent matter if you post this here or at a McD toilet. I know that maybe i should have posted this at somewhere else like Reddit or something.
But i dont agree that 5k pics makes a movie better, i almost never look at the quality of the textures, but at how well written the plot is, or how good the music is.
Obviously The Hobbit uses the latest technology available such as the 3D 48fps but so will the new SW trilogy I am pretty sure. The Prequel were made in the first years of 2000 when the 3D was not yet in the forefront of theathers. Anyway I have seen the Hobbit in RealD 24 fps and I should say the 3D wasn't very good. Avatar was much better in the same format. So, if comparison is to be made I think it should be based of the contents of the films each placed in their contexts more than the technologies used.
I see it like this: Lord of the Rings= three excellent epics with no downsides. The Hobbit: an excellent film, not quite as good as the trilogy though. Star Wars: Three brilliant films, two poor films and a decent one. Winner: Lord of the Rings.
The Hobbit film shouldn't count because it isn't lotr(same world, but decades earlier) and it isn't complete yet, since the broke it into a trilogy. As far as world building, a galaxy trumps a world where they only show a portion of one continent and nothing else.
same applies with Star Wars we only see a small portion of that most of them with Earth like terrain Desert ice water Desert.. (Geonosis) Earth.. (naboo) Earth..(Endor) etc the only interesting planets we do see we get a 4 second glimpse of in movie 3)
