Amph One Thread To Rule Them All: The Rings of Power + The Hobbit & Lord of the Rings Trilogies

They certainly aren't as stupid as Jar Jar. What they are is very patient, very slow to act and very old, and the last thing they are is comic relief.

And of course I dragged this out of the Cancel Culture thread. It's a catastrophic mess

 

Bringing this discussion into its appropriate topical thread was the best thing to happen to the Cancel Culture thread in days.

 

Yes, there was nothing more hilarious than a bunch of murderous, killer trees that apparently didn't even leave bones behind when an orc army ran through a forest made of them.
Also, Tolkien was so badass that he created the idea of Ents because he thought Shakespeare was a bad writer.

 

This is probably not what you intended to do, but now I'm never going to be able to entirely disassociate "William Shakespeare" from "Bill the Pony".

 

Ugh - if any of those are true then Im also OUT. Im a huge LOTR fan and the Hobbit films are OK. But Im also concerned about this and your reasons sum it up nicely. It'd be easy to screw it up. Really easy these days.

 

Those were Huorns, not Ents.

The book-Ents aren't stupid, but I do find movie-Ents to be a bit stupid, though.

 

They can't be blamed for believing Saruman was a political idealist and not a murderer.

 

For shame, they're Ents too.
Presumably, so is Old Man Willow.

 

Treebeard says that some Ents become tree-ish, and some trees become Entish, able to talk to Ents, and "limb-lithe" which may mean able to move.

While Merry thinks that the Huorns, at least, are tree-ish Ents rather than vice versa, Old Man Willow, and the other unfriendly trees of the Old Forest, are a bit less defined.

 

Ah, yes, the argument that I never made, but people claimed I made, so it must be true, right?

All I said is that I prefer the worldbuilding in Star Wars, simply because elves, giants, trolls, orcs, dragons, swords etc just don't do it for me.

I like space stuff. Stars, galaxies, lasers, spaceships etc. And also The Force.

I will leave it to the people that think there is objectivity in art to determine which one is "deeper". I don't make that distinction.

As you said, apples and oranges.

 

(Modern biology would refer to this as speciation...) Regardless, I don't think it's accurate to say that Huorns are Ents. Of course, the distinction doesn't seem to exist in the movies.

 

I refuse to accept "Are Huorns Ents?" as the SSD debate equivalent in LOTR.
That would be " Does the Balrog have wings?"

 

In other words, they’re great in the books and total **** in Peter Jackson’s battle of numpties that he calls movies.

 

Deeper is pretty objective though. It means which has more detail.

 

Quality > Quantity

 

I don’t think even GL would dispute that TLORs is of the highest possible quality. The medium of film is never going to have higher quality world building than something like Tolkien’s work.

 

That was precisely my point. Having a myriad worlds and species is all fine and dandy, but when those have very little structure, culture and history, you have much lower quality of work. Not to mention how terribly inconsistent Star Wars can be.

 

Fair enough. I misunderstood you in the other thread.

 

In simple English, since you won't let it go and will keep changing the topic:
I prefer the quality of the depth in the Star Wars universe, over the quality of the depth in Tolkien's universe.

Jesus. Christ.

Let people have other preferences when they don't bother anyone. I do not care for an objective truth in the quality of literature, let alone that I think it is ridiculous to compare scripts of movies and worldbuilding done with the purpose of making it onto the big screen, with entire novels that were written by an author, and not a screenwriter, with the purpose of making it into books. The whole comparison is ridiculous to me from its foundation, but if it gets you to stop responding to me, I will admit that LOTR >>> Star Wars in every possible level, even if I don't subscribe to the idea.

inb4 yes but The Iliad by Homer is superior to the second season of True Detective.

Subjective. I think there is a level of consistency across a selection of Star Wars, that can make the viewer/reader/videogame player have a pretty extraordinary idea of a far away universe, that can satisfy their escapism needs to the absolute maximum. In fact, it's not even a theory, it's proven, because I, I am this person. By subscribing to the Star Wars content of my choice, I strongly believe that GL's sandbox is a far more interesting one that the Tolkien sandbox. For me.

PS. Reminder that I was dragged into this thread without any intent to participate in what I stated above I consider an invalid comparison from its core. I also don't understand why someone would feel the need to declare franchise X superior over franchise Y any way, but to each their own. I just have things that I love and things I don't love. I don't care to rank them.

 

Regarding the inconsistency of the worldbuilding, no, it's not all that subjective. There are quite a few elephants in the ST rooms, to give examples broadcast to the largest possible audiences - like the beautiful shot of the effects of the Starkiller base in the sky that makes zero sense in terms of optics; or the hyperspace ramming that somehow never was envisioned against the Death Stars, was a genius writer for a time, and then became a one-in-a-million shot when the writer changed with no explanation whatsoever; speaking of which, there never was a layout for where the ST was going before it began to be made - a trait the ST shares with the OT.

It might be a consistent universe enough for you, and many others, not to be bothered by such considerations, but when you take the time to study the "nuts and bolts" of the worldbuilding that's being done, there are gaping holes, inconsistencies and lacks of investment that are objectively visible.

You were dragged here as a result of you making a statement about Star Wars having the best worldbuilding of any franchise - which you now claim was not what you meant in this thread. Fine with me, but it's what you said initiallly, and what prompted the conversation.

For my part, I haven't been ranking franchises. I have been looking at the quality of the respective worldbuilding in two distinct franchises, and never once offered an opinion about my personal preferences with regards to what I like to see being built.

 

To be fair I thought the 'comparison' was narrowed to the issue of 'worldbuilding' which tends to be inextricably tied to intent of the creator. In terms of what we do or do not like within a particular genre, I cop a fair amount of **** in my circle of metal friends as I don't really like Mayhem, Burzum or Dark Throne or any of that black metal **** so I understand where you're coming from.

 

Well I think you’ve moved the goalposts, but whatever man.

 

What's funny, is that I was dragged in this topic, my opinions about LOTR and SW have been decided for me by other people, and all of these assumptions are pretty off target. I don't know what prompted you to think I am a SW fanboy perhaps, but I can assure you I loathe the ST, and I agree with every single word on the above. I have already clarified twice what I meant, and that I find a world and a universe within the GFFA of my own choosing after dismissing the content I agree is full of inconsistencies, that satisfies me to the maximum. It does not include the ST. It includes pretty much everything Lucas, Filoni, and about a dozen of authors have contributed. Do I have the right? Or do I need to accept all SW content and judge all of it under the same brand name? Cause I refuse to do the latter.

If the new LOTR tv show is bad and invalidates a great deal of what Tolkien wrote about, do I get to claim that Tolkien's universe is full of inconsistencies and that the worldbuilding is objectively bad? Or does this rule only apply to SW and what others have addes to GL's saga?

As I said also twice (if not 3 times already), you guys are comparing the work of ONE author which is limited to a few novels and some stories set within the same universe, to 10 movies, 3 animated shows, 1 live action show, about 300 novels, 40 videogames and 100 comic series. Last time I checked, I hadn't gone mental enough to support a claim that the universe described by all of the above is consistent. But I mean, if we want to go full strawman on every single post,I am all up for it I guess? What is it that makes it so important to you to prove someone else wrong, when I have said none of what you claim I said though? I am curious.

If one phrase that I typed in a topic where people were trolling in exactly 100% of the posts was enough for you to assume you know the entirety of my thoughts about art, film, novels, authors, creators, universes and who knows what else, that's certainly not on me. And what I said was that for me personally, the worldbuilding in Star Wars is the best I have seen in any franchise. If I am not allowed to make this claim without having a couple of you jump on me and try to "correct" me, then what are message boards for? You are dragging this way too much and I am starting to lose all interest in actually maintaining a proper convo, in which I have never even told anyone else that they should change their minds, and yet, I am the recipient of such behavior in every response. At the end of the day, who the F cares what I think about Tolkien? I sure don't. I was tagged in this topic. And yes, I do think the worldbuilding in SW absolutely fantastic. Is this a problem?

Ok?

I hate all these bands, and some of them subscribe to dangerous ideologies too. Anyway, thanks. It really feels sometimes in these forums that people are not allowed to express an opinion that for some people is outside of what they consider the norm. Ironic, really.