No actually I think the first one of the "new" Star Wars trilogy was fairly poor when compared to Fellowship of the Ring. I think much of that falls on Jar Jar Binks.
But as Big T points out- the acting in the first trilogy of the Star Wars saga (episodes 4-6) was pretty wooden. Carrie Fisher, when she wasn't on Coke, Mark Hammil has gone on to such classics as Corvette Summer and an appearance on Howard Stern. Billy Dee Willians? And after awhile Chewbecca is just a big whiny bitch and someone really needed to commit genocide on the Ewoks.
I think we see the second trilogy of Star Wars with, as Big T argues, with rose tinted glasses glossing over what sucks in favor of a good memory of something that was quite novel and exciting at the time.
Compare, for instance Star Wars (either trilogy) and Lord of the Rings and the Godfather trilogy and the Godfather wins because it's a film that stands the test of time better.
I have just rewatched the first two Star Wars flicks for the new one, and in hindsight, the Attack of the Clones is not bad.
Ok, superior acting from Lord of the Rings.... who? Cate Blanchett (is she even in the later ones?) Ian McKellen- ok, I thought he was pretty good. The acting crew of the Fellowship (with the exception of Sean Bean) - sucked ass.
Let's be honest, you went to see Lord of the Rings either because:
(1) You really are a fan of the books and fantasy is your genre
(2) You didn't have the time to read through the books, and this was cheap
(3) You wanted some pretty good battle scene.
If you're a fan of the books you see the movie with the same rose-tinted glasses as you might see the first Star Wars trilogy. That said you went into the movie with a notion of character development that happened before you even went to see the picture. Jackson has a simple thing to do- don't fuck it up. Edit the book to the screenplay so that it works (we'll forgive where it goes off and where you cut Tolkien's extraneous bullshit), just make it look real and stick to the story. Easy.
If you're lazy, than you're lucky the movies weren't to bad (long and boring, but not bad). But if so than you suffer in that you don't get the understanding of character that those who read the book got. Still the epectacle was fun if the characters were weak and too many. Really, how you felt for Aragorn, Legolas (who's cute in a gay way), Gimi (who is a pain in the ass) or those Hobbits (which reminds me why I don't like kids)- who else- Liv Taylor? Please.
If you went for the battles, frankly- Helms Deep, the main battle in LoTR 3 and the final battle- sucked ass. Treants were kill, the battle scene at the end of Two Towers, ok. The thing with the rats on the way to Helms Deep, also kind of cool. But those are side actions- not the main thing. The battle in the mines- was better in the cartoon.
And yes, Per, I actually was impressed with the cartoon. I have seen both the Lord of the Rings (which ends in Helms Deep) cartoon and the second half of that (which wrapped the film up), and thought they were great. I was more impressed with the cartoon than I was with Jackson's movie.
Why? Because the books are about the damn ring and the problem of carrying the ring- the crisis that Frodo has in throwing it over, and Sam's dedication as a friend. That story was so underdone, and underplayed that Jackson almost completely fails to hold that up. Seriously, had you cut it out, you would not have missed that much.
Jackson needed to do two things- (1) make decent battles, and (2) Tell the Frodo/Sam story.
But the battles are long and boring and unbelievable. I knew what to expect and was disappointed that it didn't do it (exception being when the Treants beseige Sauron's Tower- which was pretty freaking cool). Frodo/Sam's story- sucked. You got little impression of why the carrying of the ring was so hard, the personal crisis to get rid of the ring, etc. YOu can get that out of the book because the book developed those issues. In the movies- (spaced over a year each), it doesn't work.
Yet, if you pay attention in Star Wars' first trilogy the story is more about the origins of Darth Vader, but how the Old Republic fell apart, how the Palpatine seduces Anakin Skywalker into the Darkside.
Where Lord of the Rings makes a majesty of Good vs Evil and was written with the First World War in mind (and we know who were the agents of good and evil in that one), Star Wars is about the collapse of democracy, about the tyranny of power, about how evil comes from our uncontrolled emotions. Lucas says its about Nixon- maybe. I don't care. I thought it was more interesting than some idealized version of what the Great War was all about when the reality was that it was just a big bloodletting by great powers.
For me, the first Star Wars- about the fall of democracy and the seduction of evil is a better story.
Ok, but I also go with "how it ends" matters.
Lord of the Rings starts well, the middle is ok, the end kind of sucked and (at least for me) boring.
Legolas, Aragorn, Gimli- yeah instead of actually standing up the Orcs Aragorn has to call on an army of dead spirits (which in the movie seems to have arisen out of Aragorn's ass). And it's just a coincidence that the good guys make a last stand in front of Sauron's walls while Frodo is about to toss the ring in the fire. Come on. How about that character development. Oh like we don't need another Aragorn, son of Arathorn, future king saves our ass because he's special. Really... I had trouble staying awake.
Fair enough Lucas gets a lot of shit. He deserves it. But the last Star Wars (Revenge of the Sith) was pretty damn good.
When Samuel Jackson goes into to capture Palpatine with three other Jedi Sword masters and Palpatine cuts those three down faster than a sushi chef cuts a cucumber with a Ginsu knife, and then (when he comes with the intention to arresting Palpatine and realizes that no he has to kill Palpatine, and thus taste the dark side... that's fucking cool.
I like when Palpatine tells Anakin to kill his Dooku even though Dooku is Palpatine's apprentice. Ok, I even enjoyed as Anakin slaughters the young Jedi students as his pact with the devil to prevent Padme's death and join the Dark Side. And I enjoyed how the Clones are told by the Emperor to betray the Jedi. I even enjoy how Anakin is instructed to play double agent, even as the Jedi suspect he can't be trusted.
Sorry but it comes down to how it ends. Phantom Menace was about establishing context and introducing characters. Attack of the Clones set up Revenge of the Sith but getting the Clone War started (yes- how easy to create a militaristic empire when those who die are just clones). Revenge of the Sith was a solid and suprising conclusion that kept me interested throughout- something I cannot say for Lord of the Rings.
Ok, maybe it's just that I hate elves. WHen you got Priscilla, Queen of the Desert/ Agent Smith playing the head of the elves- I get tired of it.
Maybe I just like Natalie Portman, or maybe I like Yoda more than Gandalf (because that little green muppet looks more real than Gandalf to me), maybe I like Ewan McGregor playing Alec Guinness. Or maybe I like a story with a bit more nuiance where the bad guys triumph and the good guys don't have to rely on coincidence and fate to get by.
And maybe I am just painting myself as the blacksheep. But fuck it-I'm right and most of you guys are wrong.
(oh the Jedi go Lightsaber happy to catch Dooku who is the Sith apprentice)
