Tang criticizes "Lord of the Rings" for having good special effects and not making her laugh. But when I watch "Star Wars," the things that make me laugh are the movie's outdated special effects and the terrible acting of Mark Hamill!

-- Jason Owens

I enjoyed your article comparing "Lord of the Rings" with "Star Wars." It precisely articulated some of the feelings I had after viewing Peter Jackson's movie. Thank you for your insightful writing.

-- Rob Hanson

The tone of Jean Tang's review of "LOTR" leaves me trying to imagine "The Simpson's" Comic Book Guy as a woman.

-- Logan Rogers

This silly article is based on an untenable premise, frequently asserted: that all the people who see "Lord of the Rings" the movie are former readers of "Lord of the Rings" the book. What's more, Tang writes, these people are all fanatics about the book.

What nonsense.

Having seen both films, I wouldn't dream of rating them competitively. I do recall the remark of the writer of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," who recognized "Star Wars" as a western, and one that would probably put real westerns out of business. How right he was.

And I point out that "Lord of the Rings" is probably the first big-budget film in which the new crop of children are seeing screens full of actors who haven't had their teeth capped, and who do in fact have real countrymen's hands with ground-down, dirty fingernails much overgrown with cuticle.

Tooth caps gleam from most mouths in "Star Wars." Dental care will doubtless be excellent in that far-off galaxy when that time rolls round.

-- Paul Kunino Lynch

I find myself wondering why Jean Tang went to see "Lord of the Rings," since she seems not to get the basic premises of the movie. And she seems to have missed the idea that it is in fact part one of three, and intended that way -- unlike "Star Wars."

That's probably because she's a critic, and too wound up in analysis to enjoy the movie.

However, I'll quibble with one of her points -- the notion that box office figures are a popularity contest. First, what if they are? Presidential elections are popularity contests. Second, box offices figures do not cover repeat viewings. And I'm betting -- from simple observation -- that more people will see "Lord of the Rings" twice or thrice than any other movie in history.

Finally, as to historical perceptions of quality, Ms. Tang completely underestimates the fannish mind. The only reason that "Star Wars" has lasted is its potential for "trivia," as she calls it, and "Lord of the Rings" has far, far more. "Lord of the Rings" will be seen alongside "Star Wars" for decades to come, and may even surpass it in popularity eventually.

-- Drew Shiel

While Jean Tang's comparison of "Lord of the Rings" to "Star Wars" makes some very good and valid points -- especially with regard to translating a work of literature into the language of moving pictures -- I think that the comparison is fundamentally unfair.

Obviously, "Star Wars" has set the standard for all action/sci-fi/fantasy movies. But it has also set the standard for movie series. Ms. Tang's comparison is only in terms of the former, whereas it seems that the latter might be a better comparison.

No one is able to say that "Lord of the Rings" as a series is better than "Star Wars" as a series -- but they can't say it is worse, either. Comparing the first episodes of each series yields obvious results. And comparing the best single episode of each series will probably still favor "Star Wars: Episode IV." But once all of the cards are on the table, the high card doesn't matter and the best hand will win.

-- Michael S. Thibault

Recent Stories