I've been a fan of "Star Wars" since I was 10 years old. It dominated my world for quite a few years, and I would still rank it up in the list of my favorites. However, now, as an adult who can look at things more objectively (something Jean Tang is apparently unable to do), I must point out that all the characters in "Star Wars" are one-dimensional archetypes whose portrayals ranged from wonderful (Harrison Ford) to amateurish (Mark Hamill). The characters in "Lord of the Rings" are much more complex while still attaining an archetypal nature, and the portrayals all brilliantly reflect this.

In terms of humanity (and this is where Tang most assuredly loses all touch with reality), there is more of it in the opening scenes between Bilbo and Gandalf in "LOTR" than in the entire first "Star Wars" movie! Tang conveniently forgets that "Star Wars" uses two robots as its central characters around which the rest of the story develops. That anthropomorphic qualities are given to these machines (one is a pessimist, the other an optimist -- still one-dimensional) adds very little to the film's humanity.

I am a movie fan, not an enraged geek-boy. And though I read "LOTR" when younger, I do not make it a habit to debate its finer points. Rarely do I respond to blatantly inflammatory articles that cannot see beyond their own tunnel vision. However, I read Salon.com because it generally presents me with well-thought-out and informed articles about a wide variety of subjects. This article, while desperately trying to keep up the pretense of intelligence, fails to meet the standards I've grown to expect from this site.

Jean Tang comes off as a "ringophobe," desperately defending his or her childhood memories against some sort of "attack" from those who have the gall to say that the "Rings" trilogy is the next "Star Wars." Big deal. Really, who cares? I enjoyed both movies ... in completely different ways. Grow up.

-- Chris Chapman

While Jean Tang wrote an interesting and comprehensive article regarding my two favorite movies of all time, I believe she overlooked a very important point when critiquing Tolkien's flick.

Simply put: "War is hell."

When Lucas made the "Star Wars" trilogy, he chose not to keep that adage in mind. Death was glossed over during the rebels' fight against the alliance. Leia's entire world was destroyed, and throughout all three movies she never gave it a second thought. Solo blasted anything that looked at him sideways and never once had a crisis of conscience. Ewoks were scorched on the forest moon on Endor, but 20 minutes later there was dancing in the trees.

Humor was the confection by which death was candy-coated in Lucas's opus. In Jackson's "Rings" it was not.

"Lord of the Rings" delved into the hell of war. War made the characters somber, cynical, remorseful and terrified. What is evident of the Fellowship is that none of them want to be there! None of these people had anything to joke about. To have them do so would have been awkward.

When Kenobi died, Skywalker gave a curt scream before trading shots with storm troopers. Han and Leia didn't blink, and I don't think Chewbacca even noticed.

When Gandalf died, grown men threw themselves to the ground and wept.

The difference in style is clear. One director chose to keep his characters in the light while the other chose to drop his characters into darkness. Based on this, I do not believe you can say one was lacking.

With respect,

-- D. Olsen

While the original "Star Wars" movie was a nice space opera, very well done and all, it was hardly a great movie in the sense "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" was a great movie. "The Empire Strikes Back" was a wonderful character study and a beautiful film and the only "Star Wars" to approach greatness, but it doesn't match the rest of the series in tone. "The Return of the Jedi" and "Phantom Menace" are dreck as films go, interesting only because they show what happens to the characters we love. In short, only "A New Hope" and "The Empire Strikes Back" are good films, regardless of how many tickets they sell.

While I suspect that "Star Wars" will always be the more popular series of movies, and while I know that Lucas has intended to say more to a wider audience about human nature, I suspect that his ultimate message from the eventually six movies is why a young man chooses evil over good and is somewhat redeemed at the end. I do not think that message will endear people to the entire story arc. I think that is why we were treated to the second half of the story first. Do I think it is an important story? Yes, because it will ultimately be original for this very reason.

-- Dan White

Recent Stories