<![CDATA[Message Boards - Boba Fett Fan Club — SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/topic/1674/sw-vs-lotr/ Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:18:19 +0000 PunBB <![CDATA[Re: SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43873/#p43873 ow! stop it! ow!

oh, and as to why i made that list...i'm organized! okay?

(i was joking earlier...)

]]> Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:18:19 +0000 http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43873/#p43873 <![CDATA[Re: SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43862/#p43862 let's slap him!

]]> Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:03:59 +0000 http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43862/#p43862 <![CDATA[Re: SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43858/#p43858 Jodo Kast wrote:

wow.

i'd say "get a life", but that seems ironic considering we're on a site devoted entirely to a fictional bounty hunter and are talking about him.

get a life.

1. Who are you talking to?
2. Why?
3. You made a list of reasons why LOTR was better than SW... and you seriously think you can say, "get a life" to anyone?"

]]> Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:57:40 +0000 http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43858/#p43858 <![CDATA[Re: SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43851/#p43851 wow.

i'd say "get a life", but that seems ironic considering we're on a site devoted entirely to a fictional bounty hunter and are talking about him.

get a life.

]]> Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:46:56 +0000 http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43851/#p43851 <![CDATA[Re: SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43849/#p43849 Fett_II wrote:

that's because Peter Jackson wanted to not go by how the books were written. And if J.R.R. Tolkien said it's not a Trilogy (even his son, Christopher re-prints it in newer editions), then their words are above all others. Like, in example, if George Lucas were to pronounce that all six Star Wars movies are in fact gothic, then we'd have no choice but to accept it.

So by your logic I can write 2 books, and call them a trilogy. And It will in fact be a trilogy? Because I said so. Being the author does not allow your word to be magically true.

Trilogy = a set of three literary or dramatic works related in subject or theme. (actually dates back to ancient greece...)

]]> Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:44:37 +0000 http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43849/#p43849 <![CDATA[Re: SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43767/#p43767 But in being released in three different books makes it a trilogy. "Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury" comes lliterally right after "Pitch Black," story wise. These, along with "Chronicles of Riddick" are considered a trilogy, despite the "Dark Fury" being an extension of "Pitch Black."

]]> Mon, 20 Aug 2007 02:03:00 +0000 http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43767/#p43767 <![CDATA[Re: SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43764/#p43764 if you read some books, like many Stephen King novels he devides them into sections, this is realy what Tolkien did. So when saying its a trilogy we mean a trillogy of sections. Just because they are released as separate books today does not mean that what they were originaly said to be has changed.

]]> Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:45:40 +0000 http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43764/#p43764 <![CDATA[Re: SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43763/#p43763 That is not exactly true; Tolkien may have not intended it as a trilogy, but that does not make it not a trilogy. We still have to go by facts such as definitions.

]]> Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:27:49 +0000 http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43763/#p43763 <![CDATA[Re: SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43761/#p43761 that's because Peter Jackson wanted to not go by how the books were written. And if J.R.R. Tolkien said it's not a Trilogy (even his son, Christopher re-prints it in newer editions), then their words are above all others. Like, in example, if George Lucas were to pronounce that all six Star Wars movies are in fact gothic, then we'd have no choice but to accept it.

]]> Sun, 19 Aug 2007 23:12:30 +0000 http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43761/#p43761 <![CDATA[Re: SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43749/#p43749 Fett_II wrote:

Book: Lotr
Movie: both
Everything Else: Star Wars

And, to point out a very certain fact, Lord of the Rings is not a trilogy. It is one story, separated into three books. i.e.: the second book is called The Two Towers, not LotR 2: The Two Towers. The latter would make it a sequel.

Book wise that is true, but the movies are a trilogy.

]]> Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:42:36 +0000 http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43749/#p43749 <![CDATA[Re: SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43741/#p43741 Book: Lotr
Movie: both
Everything Else: Star Wars

And, to point out a very certain fact, Lord of the Rings is not a trilogy. It is one story, separated into three books. i.e.: the second book is called The Two Towers, not LotR 2: The Two Towers. The latter would make it a sequel.

]]> Sun, 19 Aug 2007 04:37:14 +0000 http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43741/#p43741 <![CDATA[Re: SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43700/#p43700 okay, i came up with 4 main topics and a bonus fifth topic.

each of the 4 were worth the number of movies that series had.

the fifth, for each one i added, was worth 2 each.

actually, i need to rescore it.

]]> Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:24:25 +0000 http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43700/#p43700 <![CDATA[Re: SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43699/#p43699 Jodo Kast wrote:

it's just my way of saying Star Wars doesn't even begin to compare to Lord of the Rings in my book!

don't take it so seriously!

I don't take too many things seriously, especially topics like this. I was just showing why I think SW is much better.

And I still don't understand your scoring system...

]]> Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:20:06 +0000 http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43699/#p43699 <![CDATA[Re: SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43683/#p43683 Fetterthanyou wrote:
Jodo Kast wrote:

each one counts as the # of movies
and each "awesome" character counts as 2.

LoTR:
-awesome special effects
-brilliant characters
-excellent writing
-want to watch it overandoveragain!
-Aragorn and Legolas rule!

Star Wars:
-decent special effects
-okay characters
-not that good writing (sorry, George...)
-seen it.
-Boba Fett rules!

LoTR: 16
Star Wars: 2

Lord of the Rings wins!
yay!

What...?  i do not understand your score system (which is completely illegible)

Since LOTR is a trilogy (not counting the hobbit) I'll just use the original trilogy of SW.

Special Effects = If you are talking about the original trilogy, it had the most groundbreaking special effects of any movie ever. While Jackson had some fine effects, nothing awe-inspiring.

Characters= Han Solo, Boba Fett, Darth Vader... vs. Frodo (an irritating midget), Gimli (see last comment), and Legolas (Actually he was cool)

Writing= Star Wars had one of the most epic turning points in movie history (I am you're father). Gotta admit LOTR has great writing... but Jackson didn't write it, J.R.R. Tolkien did. So theres the advantage.

???...??? = "-want to watch it overandoveragain!" "-Seen it" (????)

Didn't you already do characters?

it's just my way of saying Star Wars doesn't even begin to compare to Lord of the Rings in my book!

don't take it so seriously!

]]> Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:34:13 +0000 http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43683/#p43683 <![CDATA[Re: SW vs LotR]]> http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43678/#p43678 Rofl, i love them both but i have to go with SW too.

]]> Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:09:15 +0000 http://www.bobafettfanclub.com/boards/post/43678/#p43678