"Star Wars" was a fluke in the oeuvre of George Lucas, who earnestly and determinedly has nuked away at whatever resonance that film and its superior sequel "Empire Strikes Back" have had on pop culture with the inane digital kiddie drivel of "Phantom Menace." Judging from the new trailers, the "Titanic" romance-in-space vibe coming off of "Attack of the Clones" will only confirm the galactic ILM well is dry.

Jean Tang's article is bizarre in that "Star Wars" is commonly and critically considered the beginning of the end in character-based epics and heralds the dawn of the "event movie." You can't have an "Independence Day" without a "Star Wars." Effects took the place of character in 1977. Anyone willing to read into the "cinema icon" archetype shorthand of loveable Luke, smart-talking Leia, rascally Han and Gandalf-y Obi-Wan as fully developed "characters" would flunk out of scriptwriting 101. Nowhere have I ever heard the opinion that "Star Wars" was a character-driven film. Was this article paid for by Lucas Films?

Peter Jackson's "Fellowship of the Ring" was handicapped from the start, with all the thunder that Lucas stole from the Original Tolkien trilogy. (The third movies in each bear practically the same name! Not to mention the wholesale theft from Frank Herbert's "Dune.") The fact that Jackson pulled off the task of making an emotionally resonant film while juggling the task of not repeating "Star Wars'" Tolkien-esque scenes and set pieces is amazing. "LOTR" will always be a more richly developed world, its weight and potency created before Ewok Happy Meal tie-ins and thus carrying its integrity into the film medium barely tarnished. I am a "Star Wars" fan, but I would never mistake it for more than it is.

-- Jim Dwyer

Jean Tang's comparison of "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings" is so superficial and simplistic that I initially thought she was being satirical. She is aware of plot and character similarities between the two but seems not to have recognized the huge debt owed by the plot and characters of "Star Wars" to "LOTR," which anyone who had read "LOTR" immediately recognized upon the release of "Star Wars" in 1977. Her argument is exactly the reverse of reality: The cartoonishness of the plot and characters of "Star Wars" comes up short when measured against the much more deeply drawn plot and characters of "LOTR," and these are fully realized in the wonderful movie version. We need a W.H. Auden for this generation.

-- Sean Kelley

If a generation of film school grads hadn't grown up with "Star Wars", and therefore been indoctrinated into its entirely sophomoric world of white vs. black, good vs. bad, we'd all realize that it's a terrible movie: poorly acted, poorly directed. George Lucas has almost no grasp of film form. The movie works in spite of its shortcomings as a film only because the spectacle of the special effects distracted us long enough to forget about Lucas' serious deficiencies as a filmmaker. "LOTR" is a serious work of Hollywood cinema, not simply a two-hour commercial for special effects.

-- Joe DiCastro

The point of this piece was to provoke, and that's fine, but provoking geeks is easy sport. We are easily outraged and ready to defend completely meritless points.

The article has the feel of someone trying to rationalize the fondness for an important movie of the author's youth and how a similarly resonant and fantastic movie in no way can measure up to what the author experienced as a child. It's fogeyism and similar to complaining that the "Willy Wonka" film is better than the "Harry Potter" film (it isn't), and that the current generation is more helplessly shallow because it's being cheated and too dim to know it.

"Star Wars" concerns human instinct and virtue in a world of hardware and technocracy. "Lord of the Rings" is about perseverance and renewal in a world where the grandest moments have already passed. Can't both movies, touching on very different aspects of life, be enjoyed without pissing on one of them?

No, probably not.

-- Bruce Scherer

"Lord of the Rings" is meant to be a tale of a battle against evil. Not against some very bad men with lots of power and evil ambitions. In fact, to equate the understanding of evil in both movies is to misunderstand its relation to power. In "LOTR," greater power is in and of itself a temptation, while in "Star Wars," it is a temptation only when sought without the proper spirit and discipline.

And to deride the movie for not being a novel in its lacking proper character development and exploration of motivation is also to misunderstand it in a related way: There is some evil which is not in any way part of human life, that is unnatural and must be resisted at all costs. The point is that some weaknesses are unforgivable.

-- William Stafford

Recent Stories