Discussion Star Wars vs Lord of the rings | battle of goyslop

[Stupid Clown]

Which goyslop do you prefer? I grew up with both and prefer LOTR because the characters are more likable and there's less cringe than Star Wars. Gollum is also a pretty relatable character as a subhuman
View: https://youtu.be/UYpRSs7pzJo?si=yq74XzcIs8kNkw_p

 

[RegularManlet]

Idk if star wars is that good, I think its just a famous case of Just Be First Theory, similar to Penguinz0 blowing up on YT

 

[Stupid Clown]

Idk if star wars is that good, I think its just a famous case of Just Be First Theory, similar to Penguinz0 blowing up on YT

I'd argue that for original Star Wars. Prequels imo have the best sword fights and action of any fantasy or science fiction movie although they're a bit shitty outside of those fights. I'd much rather watch Revenge of the Sith than dune purely because of action and music.

 

[Fat Link]

Star Wars is more fun but Lord of the Rings is of vastly higher quality.

Star Wars was basically George just coming up with shit partially on the fly with no clear direction and I think I heard that he heavily ripped off from the Dune story or whatever for SW’s narrative.

Meanwhile LOTR’s was a fully fleshed out and carefully crafted story and universe created by a brilliant author.

So as far as overall quality and direction goes LOTR’s wins by a mile but again Star Wars is arguably more fun.

 

[Stupid Clown]

Star Wars is more fun but Lord of the Rings is of vastly higher quality.

Star Wars was basically George just coming up with shit partially on the fly with no clear direction and I think I heard that he heavily ripped off from the Dune story or whatever for SW’s narrative.

Meanwhile LOTR’s was a fully fleshed out and carefully crafted story and universe created by a brilliant author.

So as far as overs quality and direction goes LOTR’s wins by a mile but again Star Wars is arguably more fun.

Dune ripped off something else which Star Wars copied as well. I forgot what it was called. I agree. LOTR is much more quality and Tolkien is amazing. Personally I loved reading Tolkien. Especially Children of Hurin.

 

[Regenerator]

I never seen Lord Of The Rings & I haven't watched Star Wars for years now.

 

[Stupid Clown]

I never seen Lord Of The Rings & I haven't seen Star Wars for years now.

Surprised you never saw it.

 

[Regenerator]

Surprised you never saw it.

I never seen any Harry Potter or any MCU movie either.

 

[Stupid Clown]

I never seen any Harry Potter or any MCU movie either.

Harry Potter and marvel are the most subhuman goyslop. I watched some and fell asleep.

 

[Regenerator]

Harry Potter and marvel are the most subhuman goyslop. I watched some and fell asleep.

I rather watch paint dry than watch either of them.

 

[Stupid Clown]

I rather watch paint dry than watch either of them.

Based.

 

[RegularManlet]

I'd argue that for original Star Wars. Prequels imo have the best sword fights and action of any fantasy or science fiction movie although they're a bit shitty outside of those fights. I'd much rather watch Revenge of the Sith than dune purely because of action and music.

Yeah it was at least good for the action, everyone just shits on the prequels to follow the masses but I would sooner fall asleep watching the original boring trilogy than the prequels

 

[Stupid Clown]

Yeah it was at least good for the action, everyone just shits on the prequels to follow the masses but I would sooner fall asleep watching the original boring trilogy than the prequels

Agreed. OT is fucking boring

 

[Redbeard7]

Star Wars is more fun but Lord of the Rings is of vastly higher quality.

Star Wars was basically George just coming up with shit partially on the fly with no clear direction and I think I heard that he heavily ripped off from the Dune story or whatever for SW’s narrative.

Meanwhile LOTR’s was a fully fleshed out and carefully crafted story and universe created by a brilliant author.

So as far as overall quality and direction goes LOTR’s wins by a mile but again Star Wars is arguably more fun.

"Meanwhile LOTR’s was a fully fleshed out and carefully crafted story and universe created by a brilliant author."

Indeed, which is why I think OP's description of the film as "goyslop" is inaccurate. Yes I know the LOTR trilogy are Hollywood films that had some involvement from Weinstein but they were remarkably free of degenerate propaganda as far as I can tell as someone who has watched the films many times and is attuned to the trickery of the film industry.​

 

[Stupid Clown]

"Meanwhile LOTR’s was a fully fleshed out and carefully crafted story and universe created by a brilliant author."

Indeed, which is why I think OP's description of the film as "goyslop" is inaccurate. Yes I know the LOTR trilogy are Hollywood films that had some involvement from Weinstein but they were remarkably free of degenerate propaganda as far as I can tell as someone who has watched the films many times and is attuned to the trickery of the film industry.​

Eh, compared to the books there's a lot of goyism injected into them. For example in the book glorfindel saves Frodo from the ring wraiths in the fellowship of the ring. In the movies Arwen does because they wanted a strong female character. In the trilogy all the female characters are portrayed to be more stoic and less feminine than they were in the books.

 

[slavcel11]

Star wars is a goyslop through and through, from start to finish. It was designed to be a goyslop. LOTR has a lot of saving qualities and even stands on it own (the first trilogy anyway).

 

[Stupid Clown]

Star wars is a goyslop through and through, from start to finish. It was designed to be a goyslop. LOTR has a lot of saving qualities and even stands on it own (the first trilogy anyway).

Yes, I agree.

 

[Redbeard7]

Eh, compared to the books there's a lot of goyism injected into them. For example in the book glorfindel saves Frodo from the ring wraiths in the fellowship of the ring. In the movies Arwen does because they wanted a strong female character. In the trilogy all the female characters are portrayed to be more stoic and less feminine than they were in the books.

"glorfindel"

Would this have fit in terms of character development? Does he appear prominently later in the book or is it a one-time appearance? Aside from the feminist angle I think they wanted to establish Aragorn and Arwen's relationship early. She also has no combat role, she saves Frodo with 1. horse riding (a sport with far, far less of a sex gap in performance than say boxing) 2. magic

Tolkien had Eyowyn say something similar to "I am no man" before killing the Witch King, which is a bit cringe (though she was assisted massively in the task by Merry). I don't regard the books as goyslop because of this imperfection. Even if our ideas were hegemonic media would vary ideologically to some extent.​

 

[Stupid Clown]

"glorfindel"

Would this have fit in terms of character development? Does he appear prominently later in the book or is it a one-time appearance? Aside from the feminist angle I think they wanted to establish Aragorn and Arwen's relationship early. She also has no combat role, she saves Frodo with 1. horse riding (a sport with far, far less of a sex gap in performance than say boxing) 2. magic

Tolkien had Eyowyn
say something similar to "I am no man" before killing the Witch King, which is a bit cringe (though she was assisted massively in the task by Merry). I don't regard the books as goyslop because of this imperfection. Even if our ideas were hegemonic media would vary ideologically to some extent.​

He was important to the lore and an elf from the first age. He's no less important than Galadriel. Arwen would've never been allowed to do what she did under Elrond's watch. In the books only men fought in wars or pursued dangerous combat even among elven societies.

Eyowyn in the books comes to accept her feminity and position in life as a woman. Her major character arc is accepting her feminity. Something you don't see in the films.

 

[Redbeard7]

He was important to the lore and an elf from the first age. He's no less important than Galadriel. Arwen would've never been allowed to do what she did under Elrond's watch. In the books only men fought in wars or pursued dangerous combat even among elven societies.

Eyowyn in the books comes to accept her feminity and position in life as a woman. Her major character arc is accepting her feminity. Something you don't see in the films.

Sure, there was an element of political correctness in having Arwen escort Frodo to Rivendell. But all in all Arwen is a very positive female character in the film: she's completely devoted to Aragorn (the only man she's ever had sex with in her thousands of years) to the point of being willing to sacrifice her immortality to be with him. Her life force is also tied to his by choice (potentially comparable to the patriarchal Indian practice of sati). And her highest personal goal seems to be becoming a mother to his son. Her skill as a rider could be seen as a feminist trait but Nazi Germany had top female pilots and she's in good physical condition, there's no fat acceptance.

In the extended edition there is a scene where Eyowyn (who doesn't participate in the final battle, unlike say Merry who was also injured) starts to become close to Faramir and they are implied to be together at the end even in the standard runtime. She isn't a "strong independent woman who don't need no man". In fact, she spends much of 2 and 3 pining after Aragorn, who rejects her gently because he is completely loyal and bound to Arwen. Eyowyn is desperate to get married (and implicitly have children). Her desire to fight (for her ethno-nation, making her a militant patriot) is an extension of her virginity and prolonged chastity. She is also willing to die to defend her uncle and surrogate father Theoden.​

 

[Brainy]

The original trilogy isn't bad imo. It's beautiful art if you really look into it. But I'm into 70's/80's retrofuturism aesthetic. Any SW beyond that is soy.

Something to see.