I'm a tremendous Sci-Fi fan. Done well, it is a true art form that requires tremendous devotion and meticulous attention from its creator. Tolkien's LOTR and Asimov's Foundation are the two finest examples in my mind. Outside of literature, there is no peer to Star Wars, and by that I mean the original episdoes (4, 5, 6). Here Jean Tang writes about the differences between the two and falls horribly short of her intended point that Star Wars is the better film. Ultimately she shows only her own bias for Lucas's trilogy and her seeming distaste of the Tolkien fanatics. "In 'Star Wars,' humanity is the point. In 'LOTR,' with fans and followers in the tens of millions, Tolkien's world is the point. ... Fanatics in any realm are difficult to satisfy, but Tolkien's are the type who engage in prolonged, heated debate over authenticity, all the way down to the technical accuracy of props." Coming from this angle, Tang seems unable to balance to two movies. Indeed, she is unwilling even to focus on the plot twists in LOTR that she feels are lacking and thus contribute to Star Wars being the superior flick. "[S]o loyal Jackson and his crew to its detail, 'LOTR' becomes a sort of glorified video trivia game, with dense graphics and a relentless pace."

• First, dense graphics. Of course there are dense graphics. Without the dense graphics, the movie's fight scenes would look like Braveheart with bad costumes. We also know that Lucas's graphics in Episdoe IV would have been more dense had he the capability. It was a lack of technology, not desire, that Lucas had limited special effects in SW. Indeed, we've seen that, given the opportunity, he will go back and put some CGI in even when it doesn't work particularly well (see the inserted scene with Han and Jabba).
• "[R]elentless pace." Apparently Tang missed the lines, "Sauron needs only this ring to cover all the lands with darkness. ... He is constantly searching for it. ... [The ring] wants to be found." Also, I found the relentless action distinctly broken up by the stops in Rivendell and Lothlorien.
• "As the reluctant hero, the worried, one-dimensional Frodo Baggins comes up short against Luke Skywalker, a young, impatient man with a sense of loyalty that tempers his desire for adventure[.]" This is just nonsense. Luke's sense of loyalty tempers his desire for adventure? Again Tang seems to have missed the, "but you promised I could transmit my application to the academy this year!!!" That Luke listens to his Uncle makes him obedient, not loyal. Fear, "but it's such a long way from here" tempers Luke's desire for adventure.
• "Whence comes hobbit buddy Sam Gamgee's unswerving dedication to Frodo?" Line missed (spoken, I think three times): "Mr. Gandalf said, 'don't you leave him Samwise Gamgee.' I made a promise and I mean to keep it." Just in case Tang has trouble with Sam's loyalty to his promise to Gandalf, the wizard lost his life defending the Fellowship from a three story fire-monster wielding a two-story sword and a flaming whip.
  I'd like to go on, but the evidence continues to overwhelm Tang's attempts at several points. She does make a good point about the lack of development of Merry and Pippin and I think it would have taken nothing away from the movie to leave the plot line from the book in the movie. That said, it remains the only point I agreed with in the article.

There is one final line that cannot go unrefuted as it is near total nonsense and calls into question her depth of knowledge of the very movie she is extolling the virtues of, "[e]ven though [Star Wars] was a pioneer in both sound and visual technology, its relative restraint..." Restraint? Lucas was inventing visual effects as he went along. Refraining from the use of stop-motion photography (something never attempted in a film or anywhere before Star Wars) would have shown restraint. Indeed, we have now seen that Lucas simply couldn't push the visual effects far enough at the time and has gone back to add in some bits he wanted the first time. I don't know which movie is superior and I think it is a worthy debate, but declaring Star Wars the winner with such dubious arguments as Tang's is folly.
- posted by levinson @ 1/09/2002 07:42:00 AM