Site Presented By
Tuesday, Nov 10, 2009
Readers say: Keep your storm troopers away from our hobbits!
Jan 18, 2002 | Readers brought out their light sabers to have at writer Jean Tang after her stirring essay arguing for the superiority of the original "Star Wars" over director Peter Jackson's new epic filmed version of "The Lord of the Rings."
The letters are reprinted below.
To read Eric Lipton's defense of "The Lord of the Rings," click here.
To read Jean Tang's original story, click here.
And a complete list of Salon's writing on J.R.R. Tolkien's epic trilogy and the blockbuster new movie version can be found here.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Comparing Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" to "Star Wars" is like comparing a fresh T-bone steak to a 25-year-old McDonald's cheeseburger. "Star Wars" may have served billions and may yet serve billions more, but it's still the same old tired sci-fi fare in a slightly different wrapper.
-- S. R. Rouse, Jr.
Although I disagree with many of her points, I have to give Jean Tang credit for trying to preserve "Star Wars'" reputation as the Greatest Fantasy Ever Filmed, something George Lucas doesn't even seem interested in doing these days. I caught a showing of "Lord of the Rings" that featured the trailer for "Star Wars: Episode Two," and the lack of excitement from the audience was rivaled only by the utter silence they maintained for the "Austin Powers 3" preview that preceded it. What was it that Ms. Tang said about digital tricks standing in for old-fashioned imagination?
The original "Star Wars" trilogy and "LOTR" may place their emphasis on different aspects of the story (character vs. world, or what have you), but they both qualify as compelling fantasy epics that stick in a viewer's mind long after the collectible Burger King cups are gone. Even though we've only seen the first third of what Peter Jackson has to offer, I think it's fairly safe to say that the "LOTR" trilogy will wind up being this generation's "Star Wars," while this generation's "Star Wars" flicks are destined to become the even-numbered Star Trek movies.
-- Bryan Stratton
I love "Star Wars" and always will. But I also love "LOTR" (though I reserve the right to pass final judgment on its movie incarnation until all three films are released). They are different stories; does one have to be proved superior to the other, or can both peacefully coexist in fans' hearts?
-- Emilie Karr
Jean Tang has gotten it almost all right, particularly with regard to the lack of character development in "LOTR." But characters have not been lost primarily because of slavish devotion to details of the dense text. On the contrary, the movie draws out the battle sequences with details that don't appear in the book and aren't consistent with it, even adding an entirely new and completely out-of-character fight seen between the wizards Gandalf and Saruman. At every point, spectacle trumps both accuracy and character.
-- Michal Young
Has Jean Tang read the "Lord of the Rings?" I don't think she gets it at all. She's entitled to her opinion, but she's upset because "LOTR" is a bit incomprehensible to people who haven't read it. Tolkien's story has been waiting for this day, when technology could do it justice. Efforts to interpret Tolkien (previous cartoon movies of "The Hobbit" and "LOTR") fell flat because they didn't stay true enough to Tolkien.
Or maybe she has read it. Regarding the racism, the story reflects Tolkien's mid-20th-century British upper-middle-class worldview. Jackson left out Easterlings (Asiatics) and Southrons (Africans), who side with the Sauron. Perhaps we should never make a movie out of a pre-politically correct era for fear of encouraging racism. That's what PC apparatchiks like Tang assume, that they are a bit smarter than everyone else, so they must dictate what is acceptable.
If anybody is being manipulative and money-grubbing, it's Lucas, who turned a fine movie ("Star Wars") into a bodice-ripper with muppets (if the "Clone Wars" preview is for real).
-- W. Park
Jean Tang's "'Lord of the Rings' vs. 'Star Wars'" article tries strenuously to convince us how much better the latter is than the former. I say tries because I think the author fails utterly, relentlessly nitpicking "LOTR" to support her hypothesis and ignoring the long stretches of excellent character interaction between "LOTR's" action sequences. She also conveniently ignores the many nitpicks one could similarly make of "Star Wars" (Frodo and company survive hordes of orcs with only two casualties? Well, Luke and company survive legions of blaster-firing storm troopers with only one casualty).
Apparently, Tang's biggest gripe seems to be that "LOTR" isn't exactly what "Star Wars" is. Why should it be? "Star Wars" is a fun, rollicking space opera, with mythic threads woven through its story. "Lord of the Rings" is a much more solemn epic, shot through with equal measures of grandeur and melancholy.
I happen to really like both movies, for some similar reasons and some different ones. To prod them into battle like dogs in a pen is counterproductive. In the meantime, I look forward to Tang's next incisive article, about what a bummer it is that apples don't taste like oranges.
-- Dan Perez
