Just For a Few Laughs

As I was hunting for images for my Explanations for the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings Plot Holes, I came across a few images that made me laugh and I decided why not share them with you.  So here you go, just for a laugh.

           I first came across this image while hunting for images for my Star Wars V.S. Lord of the Rings Post.  I found this so funny because it's the reaction any kid would have if they saw someone like that.  Just too funny.

            That one I almost used for the Luke and Leia Incest Thing section because I thought it was so damn funny.  I opted not to, however, because I was trying to dispel people’s notions of the plot holes rather than encourage them.  Still, it is kind of funny to think of what may have happened.

            Gandalf with an AK-47 and I have to say it was pretty well photoshoped in.  I don't know why anyone would waste their time with that but I still found it mildly entertaining.

            Now that is awesome!  Frodo would have been screwed if they were Sith Lords instead of undead kings.  Someone should make a short film on that or something.  Simply call it The Nazgul Sith or The Sith Nazgul and you got yourself a carrier.  Someone please make that movie!

            And that was all just for a laugh.  See you all later.

Explanations for the Plot Holes of Star Wars and Lord of The Rings

            As most of my readers probably know, back in April I did my first Franchise V.S. Franchise post that put the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings film trilogies against one another and is currently my second most popular post.  I have to say, however, the backlash of choosing Star Wars over Lord of the Rings surprised me.  I was expecting a crowd divided in half but I actually found that most people agreed with my decision.  About two thirds of those I asked, emailed me, and commented on my post agreed with me when I choose the original Star Wars Trilogy over Lord of the Rings.  The remaining third was divided.  About half of that third either hadn't seen both trilogies, (that should be a crime), didn't like either, (an even bigger crime!), or were simply undecided.  The remaining half of that third liked Lord of the Rings more.  About three quarters of that half felt that Lord of the Rings was just ahead of Star Wars while the other quarter were just annoying, pissed off fan boys and very vocal about their objections to it and my debates with these fan boys have gone on to this day.

            But honestly, I'm sick and tired of fighting them so I'm offering an olive branch.  It's well known that both trilogies have tons of plot holes, both minor and major and I'm going to address all the ones I noticed and come up with explanations to them.  These are the Illusive One's Explanations for the Plot Holes of Star Wars and Lord of The Rings.



Star Wars Plot Holes

            Before I get this started, I have to say that the plot holes of Star Wars are pretty numerous but they are also very explainable.  With that said, here are Star Wars' plot holes and my explanations to them.



Plot Hole Number One

Princess Leia Leading the Empire

To the Hidden Rebel Base

            Yea, they really dropped the ball on this one.  If Leia knew they were being tracked, the logical choice would have been to ditch Han and the Millennium Falcon and contact someone to pick her up elsewhere before returning to the rebel base.  This probably had more to do with the strained budget George Lucas and his crew was working with more than anything else.  It and the shooting schedule were about the only things that Fox kept a tight leash on while the first film was being made so this plot hole can be blamed on that.  It can also be argued that the Rebels were trying to lure the Death Star to their own territory so they would have a better chance against it but that's still a big risk to take when they don't even know if the plans would reveal a weakness in the Death Star.  Other than that, I don't have anything for this one.  It's explainable, but not convincingly so.

Plot Hole Number Two

The Easy Destruction of

The Death Star

            This one annoyed me when I was doing my Star Wars V.S. Lord of the Rings Post but now I find it very plausible.  When you’re dealing with anything in space, the slightest miscalculation or bad design can cause catastrophic events and the Death Star was no different in this regard.  Even ground side there are many buildings that have been built and are being built where if one thing is hit the right way and with enough force it would cause the entire thing to collapse.  Once again the Death Star is no different in this regard.  It's just a machine/building that can be destroyed if you hit it the right way and there are things that the designers probably overlooked.  My honest guess in this matter is that when the Death Star was first being designed and built it probably had a lot more of these problems and this one was just a screw up. 

            Other people argue that because it was made by the Empire such problems shouldn't have existed.  That's just bullshit.  It's common knowledge that not everything governments make or arrange is top notch.  With such a massive construction like the Death Star, there was no way corners wouldn’t have been cut and many people would probably have been overworked to the point of collapsing.  Thinking that just because the government made it makes it immune to faults is just plain stupid.

Plot Hole Number Three

Apparently Little Time Passing

In the A New Hope

            The explanation to this one is simple.  More time passed off camera then on.  It's as simple as that.  More time probably passed in their trip to Mos Eisley then it was originally implied and the same goes for their trip from Tatooine to Alderaan, along with their time on the Rebel Base.  If you’re not satisfied with that just rewatch the movie and think on it for a while.  That said, let’s move on.

Plot Hole Number Four

The Exploding Walkers

In The Empire Strikes Back

            This really isn't so much a plot hole as it is nitpicking.  Throughout the battle on Hoth, several of the walkers exploded in the most random ways.  For example, they just shoot at one after it's been tripped and it just explodes despite the fact that they say that the walker's armor is too strong for blasters.  Later in the battle, Luke tosses a grenade, (or something like one), into the body of a walker and its head explodes.  I mean what the hell?  It's not really a plot gap but it's something that has bugged me more than any other problem in the original trilogy and not only is there no explanation for it but no one ever seems to address it.

Plot Hold Number Five

The Rebel Ships going into the direction

Of the Star Destroyers despite the fact they

Have infantine directions to flee in.

            This was one I really hadn't noticed until I saw the Family Guy episode Something, Something, Something Darkside.  Basically, the Rebel ships seem to fly in the exact direction the Imperial Star Destroyers are stationed despite the fact that they can flee in nearly every other direction.  This explanation is simple; the Star Destroyers moved off camera to intercept them.  Simple plot hole and a simple explanation to it.

Plot Hole Number Six

Luke Learning the Force from Yoda

In Apparently Little Time

            This is yet another one where it can be implied that more time passes off camera then on.  Some people tried to debunk this argument saying that little time seems to passes while Han, Leia and C3PO flee from the Empire and spends little time on Bespin.  Once again, it can be implied that more time in these places passes off camera then on.  While in space, they were probably hiding from the Empire for several days if not weeks.  Some people try to debunk that argument by saying that they wouldn’t have enough food for the time.  Seriously?  Han Solo is a fucking smuggler!  He has probably gotten into situations where he had to hide out for a while and had the Millennium Falcon stocked up for such occasions.  Where is this food?  Probably in some storage area where camera never went to.  The Millennium Falcon wasn't that small and there were undoubtedly many areas of the ship that we never saw.  Who honestly wants to see a kitchen or a bathroom in a space opera? 

            As far as their time in Bespin goes, they were fixing a hyper drive accelerator, not a bent fender.  Fixing something like that would probably take a few days at the very least and that time passed off camera as well.  The same could be said for their time imprisoned by Vader and the Empire.  It's something that a lot of people over analyzed and I, in turn, have explained it all away.

Plot Hole Number Seven

Lando Wearing Han's Cloths

            This is another thing that really isn't a plot gap so much as a nitpicking thing.  At the end of Empire, for some reason, Lando is wearing Han's cloths.  It's another thing that I hadn't noticed until I watched Something, Something, Something, Darkside and now it's something that I laugh at every time I see it.  The explanation is simple; he needed a change of clothes after all that crap that went down in Bespin and Han wasn't around object.  I'm honestly not sure I would have done any different. 

Plot Hole Number Eight

The Luke/Leia Incest Thing

            This is something that has been way too over analyzed and those who hate Star Wars blow this thing out of proportions.  However, when people argue on this, those who have over analyzed it base all of their arguments on the fact that Leia kissed Luke once on Hoth simply to make Han jealous.  But she did this without knowing Luke was her brother and it's not like they had sex or anything.  It's probably something they would shudder about and try to forget about later but over analyzing douchebags just blew it out of proportions and made into a big deal.  One of the over analyzing douchebags I know actually furthered this argument by using Leia's line “I know.  Somehow I've always known.” in Return of the Jedi.  More than likely, she always loved Luke like a brother and when she found out that he was her brother she just connected the dots.  So there is your explanation.  Now stop overanalyzing this!

Plot Hole Number Nine

Building a Second Death Star

            This is something that I acknowledge as cheep rehashing but it's also something that's grown on me.  The argument against this one was simple: Why built a second Death Star when the first was destroyed so easily?  Well, the explanation to this one was just as simple: Because it was a space station that could destroy an entire planet!  Would they have scrapped the Manhattan Project if the first A-Bomb had some faulty wiring?  Would they scrap an advanced submarine design just because an engineer messed up the way the propellers were supposed to turn?  From a creative standpoint it was a cheap rehashing but from a logical standpoint it makes sense.  It was the most powerful and advanced space station ever created and was something they would want to recreate.  To me the question isn't why would they build another one but why wouldn't they build another one?

Plot Hole Number Ten

Building the Shield Generator for the Second Death Star

On a Planet with a Hostel Population

            Hostel population?  You mean the Ewoks?  Honestly, if you hadn't seen the climax of Return of the Jedi, would you have thought they were a threat?  I mean, come on!  They're knee high and look like teddy bears!  If you had blasters and battle armor, would you really consider them a threat?  The film also seems to imply that before the final fight they hadn't been much more than an occasional annoyance for the Empire.  I admit they were a bit of a stupid solution but one I found plausible as well.

Plot Hole Number Eleven

The Final Space Battle

            This actually entails a number of plot holes that happened throughout the second half of the film, concerning the climax.  The first were the reports of the Rebel Fleet massing at a given location and the Emperor ignoring it.  Think on this for a minute.  He was trying to destroy the Rebel Alliance in one swift blow.  If he had sent the Imperial Fleet after them they would have scattered and avoided any kind of decisive fight, as it was implied that their tactics were mostly hit and run.

            The next issue people point out was the way the Death Star had been constructed, not being entirely finished and not having a shield generator of its own.  This can once again be answered by the ambush tactic the Empire was employing.  The whole idea of the attack was to destroy the Second Death Star while it was still in its construction phases.  If it was complete, it's that doubtful the rebels would have attacked it or have been ambushed by the Imperial Fleet. 

            As far as a shield generator for the Second Death goes, most of its power would probably have gone into its offensive capabilities.  I mean the Death Star has a big and powerful gun that probably would have sucked out most of its energy.  How would they have been able to put in a shield generator that would cover a space station that big without sucking away its fire power?  Once again, it wasn't complete and they were trying to draw the Rebel Alliance into a false sense of security.  The energy emitting from a shield generator of the magnitude would have stuck out like a sore thumb and kept the Rebels clear.

Plot Hole Number Twelve

The Planets Only Having

One Kind of Terrain

            This is yet another nitpicking problem that I have noticed.  For some reason, the main planets seem to have only one kind of Terrain.  Tatooine only seems to be a desert, Hoth an ice world, and Endor a forest.  But it's not like there aren't any planets that aren't like that.  Mars, for example, isn't much more then cold, red, desert and it's plausible that there may be planets out with similar, if not identical, environments.  The same works for Hoth.  There are even planets within our own solar system with entire surfaces covered in ice.  Hoth just took it a step further by adding snow.  As far as Endor goes, just think back to the era before man existed.  Every continent was covered in forests or rain forests with only a few wintery tundras in the north and south and few a deserts here and there to break them.  It's not at all impossible that, given the right conditions, the vast majority of a planet could be covered in woods.  Finally, we only saw a small portion of Endor and it could very well be that it has other terrain features we didn't see.

Plot Hole Number Thirteen

The Ending

            As I mentioned in my Star Wars V.S. Lord of the Rings post, this series had one of the best feel good ending I have ever seen but it still left a lot of questions as to what would happen next.  The original ending only seems to imply that a decisive battle had been won but never gave any indication that the war was over.  As a result, this ending is often discredited as several years of continuing civil war would most likely ensue.  However, this was more or less corrected by then ending in the 2004 DVD edition.  In it, they show added footage of the people of Coruscant, Bespin, Tatooine and Naboo celebrating the end of the empire and this ending felt more complete.  The other ending seemed to imply that the war would continue on for decades while this one seemed to imply it would be over in two years at the most.  It's not really a plot hole but it was something I felt I had to address.  The war certainly wasn't over but the 2004 ending implied that it would be soon, the hardest part of the battle was over and everything will soon fall into place.  And there's my explanation for the ending.          

Lord of the Rings Plot Holes

            Before I get started on this, I have to say that while the major plot holes of these films are less numerous they are a lot bigger and a lot harder to explain away.  That said, let’s move on.

Plot Hole Number One

The Protagonist Being Unaware that

The Mines of Moria had Fallen

            This one, I have to admit, has always bugged the crap out of me more than any other plot hole of any other series.  The argument against this one is simple: how did no one know that Moria had fallen even though the bodies within had clearly decomposing for years, if not decade?  This is one that Lord of the Rings fanboys tend to run to the book for but we are not talking about the books.  This is strictly for the films and as far as this is concerned the books don't exist.  The best explanation I've heard for this is that the dwarves are isolationists and have very little contact with each other.  Ok, but that still doesn’t explain how an entire city, rich of mithril fell to an army of goblins without anyone noticing.  Someone was bound to notice that something was wrong with Moria.  It's possible that no one in the fellowship actually knew about the incident and no one imagined that they would go through the mines.  However, Gimli suggests that they go through the mines multiple times, yet somehow he doesn’t know they fell.  How does that happen?  Wouldn't he have checked up on Moria before subjecting his companions to that hell?  In truth, I don't have a satisfying answer to this one and it's one that bothers me to no end.

Plot Hole Number Two

How did Aragorn Know what the Uruk-Hai are called

Despite the Fact no one Ever mentioned it but Villains

And Only to Other Villians?

            This is just a nitpicking problem and really isn't much of an issue.  But it still is a good question.  How did he know what they were called?  As far as I remember, no one ever called out their names other then Saruman in Fellowship and then all the heroes just seemed to know what they were called in Two Towers.  The only explanation I can think of is that Gandalf heard what Saruman was going to call them before escaping Isengard and told the others off camera.  It's very unlikely but this isn't a plot hole that warrants a loss of sleep.

Plot Hole Number Three

What Happened to the Elves at Helm's Deep?

            This is a question I have asked myself ever since I first saw The Two Towers in theaters.  What happened to them?  They were defending the Deeping Wall and after they retreat from it they just seem disappear.  I know for a fact that they weren't all killed defending the wall because you clearly see them defending the keep facing the Deeping Wall.  The only explanation I can offer for this one is that the remaining elves were killed off camera and I'm not even entirely satisfied with that answer.  I know a lot of my explanations cite events off camera events, but this one still bugs me.  I hope it's a good enough explanation for you because I'm at a loss on this one as well.

Plot Hole Number Four

The Ents just Appearing at the Destroyed

Borders of Fangorn Forest

            The argument against this is simple: where did all the Ents come from when Treebeard decided to go to war against Isengard?  Well, it's not like it was the first time the ents popped out of nowhere.  It just seems to be what they do.  They roam around the forest and just appear when they are needed.  I know it's there, but this is just another problem that doesn’t deserve to much thought.

Plot Hole Number Five

Minas Tirith

            Just Minas Tirith.  That city in itself was a plot hole.  I don't care what kind of technology or magic you have.  Building a city like that is impossible!  Not only that, it's just illogical and not very well made.  As a city it's too cramped and limited in space and as a fortresses, it's too easy to attack with way to many vulnerable positions.  But my explanation to this is simple:  Who the fuck cares?  It looked awesome!

Plot Hole Number Six

Gandalf's Staffs

            Weird sounding, I know, but his staffs are a plot hole of themselves.  For starters, Gandalf loses his staff at Isengard when Saruman takes it and captures him, yet he has it again when he is at Rivendell.  How the hell did that happen?  Did he just make a new one off camera?  One that happened to look exactly like his old one?  Or did it just teleport back to him after he escaped?  And why didn't he have his staff during the later parts of the battle of Minas Tirith?  Well, the extended edition does explain it.  In it the Witch King destroys it but that just opens up another plot hole.  If he destroyed it, how did he have it again at the film's ending?  Did he just make a new one?  I find that doubtful and the films seemed to imply that all of the wizards' power was tied into their staffs and when they lost them they lost their powers.  But still, that's something that is more reserved for the books so let’s just say they can make new ones in the films and there is you explanation.

Plot Hole Number Seven

The Army of the Dead

            The whole army of the dead thing was probably the biggest deus ex machina I have ever seen in any film.  The whole thing would have been ok if it hadn't been for one thing: Aragorn released them before the war was over.  Why would you release an invincible army of ghosts before you defeated a foe that has you out matched in nearly every way?  It's one that annoys me but it's one of the few Lord of the Rings plot holes I think up a good explanation for.  It's simple; Aragon wanted to do the honorable thing and let them go after the battle was done.  It's very possible that he thought this battle was the decisive battle of the war and they wouldn't be needed after.  It's an area where Aragorn really dropped the ball but it's an explainable plot hole.

Plot Hole Number Eight

The Soldiers at the Battle of the Black Gate

            Everything about the soldiers in this battle struck me as wrong.  For one thing, why weren't the Riders of Rohan on their horses?  Well, it is possible that they lost too many of them at the Battle of Minas Tirith.  It's also possible that they didn't think that this would be a field battle, so much as a siege of the Black Gates.  But if that's true they are even dumber then Aragorn for releasing the Army of the Dead before the war was over.  Speaking of Aragorn, where did his horse go?  For that matter, where did all their horses go?  Well, it is possible they let them to run away off camera so that's that issue resolved.  What really bothered me, however, were their tactics.  What kind of a commander lets his army be surrounded like that and why were they bunched together like a damn mob?  This one can be a nitpicking problem or a plot gap, depending on your view but it's one that I haven't heard a good explanation for.  It just irritates the crap out of me. 

Plot Hole Number Nine

Why did all of Mordor Collapse

After the Ring Was Destroyed?

            For some strange reason all of Mordor, a land just as big as Gondor completely collapsed after the Ring was destroyed.  The fortress of Barad-Dur and Mount Doom I can understand but why did an earthquake erupt and consume the Black Gates and all of the orcs in within Mordor?  It's a weird one but who cares?  It was awesome to look at and didn't impede the storytelling in the way the final plot hole does.

Plot Hole Number Ten

The Eagles at the Battle of the Black Gate

            This is the biggest plot hole in the entire series and is one that nearly destroyed the entire series' storytelling credibility.  The whole root of this is centered around one simple question:  Why didn't the fellowship simply fly to Mordor rather than spend a year walking their?  This is one that I have never heard a satisfying explanation to and I have heard them all and debunked them all.  To those of you who may try to explain this allow me to debunk you in advance.  For one thing, no one ever looks up.  Think about it.  How many times do you look up into the sky in day?  Even on the off chance an orc or one of Sauron’s minions noticed them, if the eagles were high enough in the sky and far enough away they probably would have thought they were just regular sized birds flying high.  Visual physics have weird ways of playing tricks on one's eyes when dealing with height and distance.  And even if they did know what they were what would they have done to stop them?  Only the fell beasts could fly and there were only nine of them and the eagles seemed to be able to take them on at the Black Gates. 

            It's one that no one has a credible excuse for.  Even the books, the thing that everyone runs to cover for in the plot gap department, have no plausible explanation for it and it was a major fuck up on Tolkien’s part.   They were really cool to watch and it was a nice little tribute to The Hobbit but it impede the storytelling process in such a way that it made all of the other plot holes I mentioned seem like minor film editing errors in comparison.  It truth, it is the biggest plot gap I have seen to any big film series.  It damn near ruined the credibility of the entire series and it's a plot hole I can't help but rant about.

            I honestly have no idea why so many people rant and nitpick about these plot holes.  Some, I admit, are legitimate questions but if someone is going to put so much effort into pointing out a plot hole and elaborating on how wrong they are, they should put just as much energy into thinking up explanations for them.  While there were plot holes I couldn't explain, I put as much thought and effort into explaining them as I did identifying the problem.  While I did notice these plot holes, (or had them pointed out to me), they never diluted the entire film experience for me.  Ranting and nitpicking about such things is becoming increasingly common, incredibly annoying and it's something that everyone is guilty of and is just wrong.  Is that we critique movies now?  By just ranting and nitpicking about all the things we didn't like? Or do we look at the big picture and how the films impacted our lives and imagination?  Think on this. 

            So until next time this is The Illusive One demanding a stop to ranting and nitpicking and that people focus on the big picture and enjoy films for what they are rather than nitpick the crap out of them.



 

Star Wars V.S. Lord of the Rings

            As I said in my Look at Mortal Kombat, you either love Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.  You can like both franchises but in the end, you love one more than the other and to start off my Franchises V.S. Franchises segment, I decided to put these two great film trilogies against each other.  I won't get into the books, prequels, special editions or the animated adaptations because if I do you'll be here all day.   Before I get started, I want to state that I love both franchises and choosing one over the other in any of these categories was incredibly difficult for me so I hope you enjoy this and don't get too pissed off at me for choosing one over the other.  It also took me a while to get this together as I had to re-watch each film, had to type this up and edit it out and it took me what seemed like an eternity.  So, without further delay, this is Star Wars V.S. The Lord of the Rings.

V.S.




 

The Lead Protagonists

V.S.

           
            Luke Skywalker and Frodo Baggins.  They are both among the best known and most beloved characters of all time, but which of them is the better protagonist?  Well both characters have their strengths and weaknesses.  Luke started off as you typical young hero who craved adventure as did Frodo.  What really separated the two, however, was the way they each developed.  Both started out a bit naive, whiney, and prone to lean on others for support.  Luke, however, outgrew his whininess and as the series progressed was able to stand on his own two feet and became a fully fledged Jedi Knight.  As the films progressed, he battled both the Empire and the Dark Side of the Force every which way.  He battled the Empire literally, as well as battling the Dark Side within himself as well as Vader and the Emperor.

             Frodo had own personal conflicts about endangering his companions and went through gradual corruption by the Ring and by the end of the films seemed to be suffering from some form of PTSD.  Despite all of this, I never really found him to be that compelling of a protagonist.  Unlike Luke, he remained whiney and completely reliant on his companions for support.  Luke, on the other hand, was more compelling, could stand on his own feet, and gradually lost his annoying edge.  And if you need any more proof that Luke is the greater protagonist, think of it this way: How many people say their favorite Lord of the Rings character is Frodo?  A hell of a lot less then say Luke is their favorite Star Wars character.  Point goes to Star Wars.

The Lead Antagonist

V.S.

           Darth Vader against Sauron.  Well, I think you guys already know my decision on this one so I'll keep this brief.  Nearly seven feet tall, deep voice, willing to kill anyone, faceless and clad in black, Darth Vader was the ultimate incarnation of evil in the Star Wars Universe and remains one of the greatest film villains of all time.  Sauron, on the other hand, seemed to be more of an all encompassing evil entity then a villain; an idea more than a character.  While some might argue that that alone makes Sauron the superior, he just wasn't as compelling or as intimidating as Vader.  Even Sauron in the prequel sequence wasn't as intimidating as Vader, despite being able to kill ranks of solders with a few swings of a mace.  As if it were to compensate the fact that Sauron wasn't that compelling of an antagonist, The Lord of the Rings films added eight supporting villains to the series, (sixteen if you count all of the Ringwraths), but I'll get into those later.  Ultimately, Vader was more badass, more intimidating, and the superior character and villain.  Point goes to Star Wars.

The Supporting Protagonist Characters

V.S.

           Now this is an interesting section.  Both film franchises contain some of the most beloved characters of all time and both had strengths and weaknesses.  But ultimately, The Lord of the Rings supporting protagonists were superior.  While some of the supporting characters in Star Wars started out interesting they eventually all came to the same state of mind Luke had; commitment against the Empire and the Dark Side, all ending up as campy likeable heroes and always struck me as being two dimensional.  The Lord of the Rings characters, on the other hand, had greater depth to them and I always felt emotionally attached to them in a way I never did to characters of Star Wars.  For example, when Obi-Wan and Yoda died it made me sad and dampened my mood a bit, but when Gandalf fell from the bridge of Khaza-dum I cried.  To this day, that scene makes my eyes water and depresses me even though I know he comes back in The Two Towers.  Even minor characters with brief screen time like Théoden and Eomer I grew attached to.  The battles they went through, physical or otherwise, were far more compelling than those of Star Wars and you really wanted to see the supporting characters survive and win.  It also helped that the acting and dialog in Lord of the Rings was better, but that probably has to do with the time periods they were made in.  Point goes to Lord of the Rings. 

The Supporting Antagonist Characters

V.S.

           Now as I mentioned above, Star Wars has one of the greatest villains ever introduced.  Unfortunately, the rest of the supporting villains were out shined by Vader and, with the exception of the Emperor, weren't particularly compelling or interesting.  Lord of the Rings, however, was just the opposite and had a great cast of supporting villains.  Christopher Lee was perfect as Saruman, Brad Dourif was despicable as Wormtongue, John Noble was insane as Denethor, and whenever the Nazgul were on the screen I grew tense and couldn’t keep my eyes off it.  Like the supporting protagonist they were more compelling, more interesting, more diabolical, and were better acted with better dialog.  Point goes to Lord of the Rings.    

The Musical Score

V.S.

           Now this is probably the hardest section.  Both film trilogies contained incredible music scores that won and were nominated for Oscars.  But which was the superior?  Well, the score for Star Wars by John Williams is probably the most recognizable and most covered score of all time.  It was one of the most classic scores ever made and can be applied to almost anything beyond Star Wars.  In fact I still hear The Empire Theme played at College Football games all the time.  Within the films, however, they serve as little more then background music and you never really focus on it. 

            The Lord of the Rings score by Howard Shore was likewise an instant classic and very well applied to the films.  Each beat of the drums, every stroke of the violin and every lyric sung seemed to be on par with the steps the characters took and had a huge variety of songs.  Unfortunately, unlike the Star Wars score, it really can't be applied to anything beyond sword and sorcery fantasy and isn't quite as recognizable.

            For being a more classical score, Star Wars would win, but as being more on par with the films, Lord of the Rings would win, so I'm calling this one a draw.  Each gets half a point.

Environment/Set Design

V.S.

          
           Space or Middle Earth?  Tatooine or the Shire?  Hoth or Helms Deep?  Endor or Minas Tirith?  Yet another set of good questions.  Star Wars had some of the most recognizable environments ever put on the big screen but unfortunately was severely limited by both the time it was made and the budget limit the films were put under, (for more information on the latter, watch the documentary Empire of Dreams).  At the time the films were made everything was still miniatures and stop-motion and it's impressive what George Lucas and his special effects team was able to do with them. 

            Lord of the Rings, however, was able use miniature sets, some CGI, the beautiful countryside of New Zealand, and life size models of towns and fortresses such as Edoras and Helms Deep.  Whereas the sets of Star Wars kind of looked like space age stuff, the Lord of the Rings sets really looked like medieval stuff and I believed everything on camera looked authentic, although I'm not entirely sure why the Edoras' Golden Hall looks like a Viking hall, but that's just nitpicking.  While the Star Wars sets were revolutionary for their time, they now seem a bit bland and The Lord of the Rings sets completely out shine them.  Point goes to Lord of the Rings.

Special Effects/Makeup Designs

V.S.

           Now in this section, you could say that Star Wars wins by default.  Why you may ask?  Aren’t the special effects in Lord of the Rings better because they're newer?  Well, a lot of people may or may not know this, but when the first Star Wars film was made, the special effects sections of most Hollywood studios had been all but scrapped, as sci-fi films weren't popular in those days, so George Lucas and his special effects crews had to invent, re-invent, or rediscover all the special effects that were used in the films.  As a result, George Lucas and Lucasfilm either own or spawned most of the special effect companies that are used in Hollywood to this day.  Even Pixar, the animation company that created animated classics like Toy Story was a break off company from Lucasfilm.  The THX sound system is owned by Lucasfilm and if you watch credits in most films long enough you will see some kind of Lucasfilm logo in them.

            But as far as the special effects for the films goes, Star Wars’ effects were revolutionary for the time and changed special effects forever, (my God I'm saying that word a lot).  Now, if this were up against any other modern film series I would give it Star Wars simply because most other sci-fi films are now CGI-fests and it gets old.  Lord of the Rings, however, didn't use CGI constantly.  In fact, they only used it when it was absolutely necessary; mainly to make creatures such as the trolls, the Nazgul winged beasts, the ghost solders, and when showing huge numbers of solders.

            The makeup jobs with the aliens and the orcs were both great as well.  Once again, Star Wars seemed to be limited by both its time and its budget in this department and you can tell the actors are just wearing costumes.  In Lord of the Rings, however, when I saw an orc, I could believe that was an orc.  They were grotesque but still had their human features and I find it amazing that they were able to do all of it with makeup.

            What ultimately decided this for me, however, were four things.  The first was the bike chase in Return of the Jedi which used a green screen and I hate those even at the best of time, let alone when it was unperfected.  Second was Gollum as I, when I first saw these movies, wasn't sure if it was an actual person or CGI.  Third, was that the Rancor's size seemed out of proportions and just looked bad when the actors and creature were in the same shot together.  And last, I can't find a Lucasfilm logo in the credits of The Lord of the Rings films.  Well played Mr. Jackson for only using New Zealand special effects companies.  Point goes to Lord of the Rings.

Action Scenes

V.S.

 

           Both film trilogies are among the highest grossing of all time and what unusually makes a blockbuster?  Action scenes.  So which was superior?  Well, in Star Wars you had ships destroying ships, people basting each other with blasters and lightsaber duels between the heroes and villains.  Lord of the Rings had traditional medieval fantasy type battles that were intense and gritty.  So my decision comes down to the execution of these action scenes and in this matter it’s Lord of the Rings all the way. 

            I don't mean to pan Star Wars' action scenes but there were a lot of problems with them.  For one thing, the Storm Troopers never seemed to hit anything even though they were supposed to be elite shots.  The lightsaber duels always struck me as being a little tame, especially when compared to the lightsaber duels of the prequel trilogy.  Then there were a few explosions that just flat out didn't make any sense, most notably the walker in the battle of Hoth.

            The action in Lord of the Rings on the other hand was gritty, intense, and kept you on the edge of you seat.  The musical score helped with this but what ultimately makes it superior is the fact that not only are they better executed, but that people on both sides actually die in large numbers and the battles were just more epic.  In fact, the only real issue I had with the action was that most of the tactics employed by the solders seemed stupid and ineffective.  But that aside, the battle of Helms Deep was undoubtedly the best siege of a fortress I've ever seen on film and the Ride of the Rohirim gives me the chills every time I see those horsemen charge the lines of Mordor and I continue to enjoy them to this day. 

            Now granted, a lot of this can be blamed on the effects available when the Star Wars films were made, but that doesn’t change the fact that the action in Lord of the Rings is superior.  Point goes to Lord of the Rings.



Plot/Concepts

V.S.

            Now in this area, it usually comes down to personal preference.  Do you like space operas or sword and sorcery?  Do you like wizards or Jedi?  Swords or lightsabers?  Starships or horses?  Space Stations or fortresses?  Aliens or elves?  Well, in all of these categories, I've got to give it to Star Wars.  Space operas always struck me as being grander.  The stakes are always higher and there is no telling what can be found whereas the plots of sword and sorcery tend repeat themselves with the same things at stake.

            I always found whole Force concept and Jedi back story to be extremely compelling and far more fascinating than anything Lord of the Rings had to offer.  The whole conflict between the Jedi and the Dark Side always struck me as good and evil at its rawest and most basic form and even though it's very clichéd it always kept me fascinated.  While the back story around Sauron and the Rings and how they had to destroy the One Ring was fascinating it never struck me as being as interesting or compelling.  Don't get me wrong.  It was a great concept, but I feel it was second to Star Wars, though a close second.

            Then you had the basic story lines.  At its roots, Star Wars was about a story about a rebel force trying to overthrow an evil emperor.  Lord of the Rings was about nations trying to defend themselves against other evil nations who seek to conquer them.  So here is the question: do you prefer the ragtag rebel force facing down an evil empire or already established nations fighting a more powerful nation?  In this regard, I have to give it to Star Wars again.  Fighting within an already established empire gave it a great underdog feel and made the defeat of the Emperor that much more satisfying. 

            Once again, Lord of the Rings is a close second but on the whole, the plot and concept of Star Wars was more compelling, more original, and more fascinating.  Point goes to Star Wars.

Climax

V.S.

            Inevitably, every finale disappoints.  It's simply a fact.  One person will find an ending satisfying while another will hate it.  For example, some people liked the way Lost ended; not entirely explaining everything while ending on a huge twist and a feel good note.  But it's for that exact same reason that a lot of people hated it.  The ending of the Harry Potter series is universally hated and then you have ending like The Sopranos where...well I'm not getting into that as so many people have already addressed it.

            So then you have the final battle in the two greatest film franchises of all time.  The big moment that everyone has been waiting for; the climax!  And to be fair, they were both kind of a letdown.  So, which of these let downs was better?

            In Star Wars you had a rehashing of the Death Star battle, but this one was the way it should have been in the first one.  The Rebel and Imperial fleets clash in a battle to the finish while Vader and Luke dual in the Emperor's Throne Room and Han Solo along with the Ewoks try to destroy the shield generator that protects the second Death Star. 

            Then in Lord of the Rings, you had the forces of Gondor and Rohan luring all of the forces of evil out of Mordor so Frodo and Sam can destroy the One Ring.  The armies collide and fight in a battle to the finish while Sam holds off Gollum while Frodo races to Mount Doom to destroy the Ring. 

            So which is the superior?  Well, in this, once again it goes to Star Wars.  Why you may ask?  Well everything about it seemed more intense and the stakes seemed a lot higher.  There was fighting going on everywhere.  The Storm Troopers battled the Ewoks, (even though that sounds stupider every time I say it), the fleets were fighting each other at point blank range determined to take each other out, and Luke battled not only Vader and the lure of the Dark Side, but the Dark Side within Vader as well. 

            The climax of Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, didn't really consists of more than a few shaky shots at the Black Gate, Sam fighting Gollum, Frodo finally falling to the Rings power, Gollum biting off Frodo's finger and falling into the lava, destroying the Ring.

            Now granted neither side was without its faults.  Were the Ewoks silly?  Yes.  Was the second Death Star a cheap rehashing?  Yes.  But Star Wars' climax didn't introduce the biggest plot gaps of the series.  For example why did all of Mordor crumble after the Ring was destroyed?  It just didn't make much since.  But the biggest one was the Eagles.  Where the hell did they come from?  Why didn't they just fly to Mordor rather than spend a year walking?  I just don't get it.  It's a plot gap that I have yet to find a satisfying answer to and is what seals the fate on this section.  Point goes to Star Wars.   



Ending

V.S.

           As I said, finales inevitably disappoint but both films trilogies have satisfying endings.  The Star Wars ending consisted of little more of fireworks, celebrating on Endor and Luke saying a silent thank you and good bye to the Force Ghosts of Obi-Wan, Yoda, and Anakin.  In spite of it being so short, it conveys a lot.  The empire has been defeated, the rebels won, and the balance has been restored to the Force.  While it doesn’t actually spell it out, it implies that everything will fall into place after the credits roll and is one of the best feel good ending I have ever seen.  The 2004 DVD editions would go even further with this by adding footage of the people Coruscant, Tatooine and Naboo celebrating the fall of the empire and even tearing down statues of the Emperor, (yea I know I said I wasn't going into the special editions but I felt I had to address this).  It was short, sweet, and to the point and I love it.

            Then you have the Lord of the Rings ending which, like the rest of the trilogy, was way too long and drawn out with over a half an hour of run time after the climax but at the same time felt cramped.  You had Aragon's crowning, his reunion with Arwen, the hobbits' return to the Shire, Sam's wedding, and Frodo's, Gandalf's, Bilbo's and the Elves' final departure from Middle Earth.  On the whole, the ending was depressing and bitter sweet in a way that was the exact opposite of the ending of Star Wars.

            So once again, this is a category that comes down to personal preference.  Do you prefer a short and sweet feel good ending or a long a drawn out bitter sweet ending.  Hmm.  Well now that I put it that way, I have to give it to Star Wars.  It conveyed just as much in a shorter period of time and left you feeling good whereas Lord of the Rings' ending was drawn out and leaves you feeling depressed.  What people tend to forget is that while films are still an art form, they are meant to entertain and make you forget about reality and in this Star Wars is just better then Lord of the Rings.  Point goes to Star Wars. 

Plot Arc/Story Telling

V.S.

          
           Ha Ha!  Am I gonna have fun on this one.  Both series had a ton of things to nitpick at and had several plot gaps, many of which were never addressed.  With Star Wars the plot gaps were mostly exclusive to A New Hope.  For example, why did Leia lead the empire to the rebel base and why was the Death Star so easy to destroy? With Lord of the Rings the list is a lot longer.  How did they not know the Mines of Moria had fallen, even though those bodies had clearly been decomposing for years?  How did Aragon know what the Uruk-Hai were called, even though no one but the villains ever mentioned their names to anyone but other villains?  What happened to the Elves at Helms Deep?  Why did Aragon release the army of the dead before the war ended?  Why didn't they just fly to Mordor?  Why did all of Mordor collapse after the Ring was destroyed?  AND WHY THE FUCK AM I LOOKING SO DEEPLY INTO THIS!?  I HATE PEOPLE WHO DO THIS!  GAHHHHHHHHHA!

            Well...now that I got that out of my system lets move on.  Now you have your general plot arc and storytelling.  Star Wars told the story of a galactic rebellion and the resurrection of the Jedi.  Lord of the Rings told the story the war against Mordor and the destruction of an evil lord but which better executed?  Well, with Star Wars you had the opening text that told you what would have taken hours to explain on film.  Each film gave you the meat and potatoes of the plot; the stuff most people care about and told the rest through the text but were still able to convey just as much story as Lord of the Rings and did it with an hour to spare. 

            Lord of the Rings, particularly in Fellowship and the beginning of Two Towers, just seemed like an unorganized mess.  In Fellowship, they always make vague references to Gondor and Minas Tirith and, while it may have been intending to get the audience hyped to see it, it didn't do much more then confuse the hell out of me and crammed more into what was already a crammed film.  Then in Two Towers, you had the sudden intro of Rohan and that kind of threw me off the first time I saw it as did the sudden shift in the films from an adventure story to a war story.  Another issue was the video editing.  There was a constant shifting from one scene to another in another part of the world that I didn't care about at the moment.  For example, in The Two Towers you had the shifting from the intense battle of Helms Deep to the dull discussion of the Ents and this always annoyed the hell out of me.  Finally you had the run time of each film, which is roughly around three hours and that has put more people off these films then anything.  More people I know who haven't seen the Lord of the Rings films said it was the length of the films more than anything that kept them from watching the whole thing.

            In the end, Star Wars had fewer plot gaps and was able to convey just as much as Lord of the Rings in a shorter time span and Star Wars contained fewer things that threw me off.  Point goes to Star Wars.



The Superior



V.S.

           Now for the big one.  Which is the superior film trilogy of the two?  Well, let’s look at the points.  Star Wars had the better lead protagonist, the better lead villain, the better plot, the better climax, the better ending and the better story telling structure.  Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, had the better supporting protagonist, better supporting antagonists, better environments and sets, better special effects and better action scenes.  Both trilogies have their flaws, but in this I'm going to play the blame game.  The flaws of Star Wars can be blamed on the time it was made and the relatively limited and strained budgets they had to work with in the first two films, (once again watch the documentary Empire of Dreams for more info).  The flaws of Lord of the Rings can be laid solely at Tolkien’s feet as it was his writing and flawed story structure that ultimately brought the films down and to tell you the truth I have no love for the books at all.  Love the films, hate the books. 

            With that in mind, I have to say Star Wars is the superior trilogy.  It had the superior story, a better story structure, a more compelling protagonist and a superior villain and those are what truly make or break a film.  It was the ultimate tale of good vs. evil and its most basic and compelling form.  It was incredibly originally for its time and there has yet to be a series that has effectively mimicked it without flat out plagiarizing it, (and if I ever meet Christopher Paolini, I swear I'll beat him to death with a baseball bat).  People always say it's every story ever told put together in space opera form and that’s what truly makes it great.  It's a space opera, it's a fantasy, it's a western, and is its own.  Lord of the Rings, while great, was just inferior in these sections.  By the time the films were released the plot had been reused a dozen times over so it already felt stale whereas Star Wars felt and has always felt fresh.  Lord of the Rings is a close second but ultimately Star Wars is the superior film trilogy of the two.

           Wow! That was easily the longest post I have ever done and if you’re still with me I thank you.  Now, I'm sure plenty of you who are probably pissed at me for choosing Star Wars over Lord of the Rings, but once again, keep in mind I love both of these franchises and choosing one over the other was incredible difficult for me.  You already have my arguments as to why Star Wars is superior so I'm not going to justify myself further.  For those of you who read this and agreed with me, I say may the Force be with you.  Always.  For those of you who like both franchises as much as I do but think Lord of the Rings is better my a margin, I say live long and prosper.   For those of you who thought gave Lord of the Rings to much credit, I say do not give into hate.  For those of you who though I gave Star Wars to much credit, I'll just use a Jedi mind trick on you so see my point of view because you're obviously weak minded.  And for those of you who hated both Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.......

YOU SHALL NOT PASS!

           Until next time, this is the Illusive One demanding that both these franchises live on!  Peace!