"A blog post is never late. It always arrives exactly when it means to." Right?

So.... Yeah. I'm late. I know!

Anyways... I have never seen the Star Wars movies. Never. I know that's probably a sign of childhood neglect, but I've just never been exposed to them. I like Star Trek, though. One thing I love about both of these movies is the music. Star Trek has some super-powerful pieces that I love to listen to, and Star Wars... Well, it's Star Wars! Amazing music.

Between Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings... That's a tough one. I have always loved the Harry Potter series, both the books and the movies, but something about Lord of The Rings just makes me happy. I love them both, but if I had to choose between having a Harry Potter marathon and a Lord of the Rings marathon, I'd have to pick the second! Or just have a double marathon and not sleep for two days.

Now I need to go watch them. Darn. Sorry, U. S. History.

Fantastical Fights

I've never been much of a fan of startwars or startrek mainly due to my lack of knowledge about them. I think I too young when they were first introduced to enjoy it and. Although i remember watching starwars the memories about them are pretty vague. Harry Potter versus Lord of the Rings on the other hand is much more recent (at least in films). Lord of the Rings is much more dark and sinister than Harry Potter but both are based off of the most well known story of all time: good versus evil. Harry Potter is much more easy to follow and is more intriguing in many ways to a younger audience because of the youth of the main characters. Yet between the two I would have to go with Harry Potter, although Lord of the Rings are also exceptional movies (I’ve never read the books) Harry Potter defines our generation.

"A wizard is never late, Frodo Baggins."

In my personal opinion, Lord of the Rings tops everything. I do not really get into Star Wars or Star Trek all that much, and I have never seen or read any of the Harry Potter stuff so Lord of the Rings is the only one I really have an opinion on. I just love everything about Lord of the Rings. The storyline was amazing! So much action and drama and comedy all in one plot. There was never a dull moment. I have never read any of the Lord of the Rings books but I have heard they are incredible. The great thing about Lord of the Rings is that the author created a story where there is so much wiggle room for creativity. There is so much that you can elaborate on and turn into a new chapter or a new book. The story wasn't boring at all. The movies were very well-produced as well. The fight scenes in the movies were some of the best action scenes I have ever watched. I also love how the relationships between the characters were developed. Frodo and Sam have got to be the greatest best friend couple ever. One other thing I like about Lord of the Rings is how much is parallels with the Bible. It is the classic good vs. evil story where Sauron is the Devil and Gandolf the White is resurrected into the "godly" figure. Sauron represents the dark and Gandalf the White represents the light. All of the Lord of the Rings were classics and will forever reign as some of the greatest movies/books ever.

The One Series to Rule Them All

It's a bit hard to pinpoint just why I like Star Wars more than Star Trek seeing as I've only ever seen two episodes of Star Trek, but those two episodes didn't seem to make too much of an impression on me. The atmosphere of it seems a lot more dialogue-oriented than Star Wars, and less full of action. And beyond that action, I appreciate Star Wars for its level of groundbreaking film technique, but also in its re-imagination of the story of the archetypal hero. At its time, it was a shot in the dark to make a movie such as this, but George Lucas managed to turn it into a huge success against all odds, and that's why it upholds so much more of a legacy than Star Trek.

As for Harry Potter, I, like everyone else in this blog, grew up watching the Harry Potter films, and I'm sure that those others feel that same nostalgic connection to it that I do. It's a fantastic update to the coming-of-age style genre, and the fact that the movies had such high production value gave them leeway to be as creative as they needed to be to bring the magic to life. However, Harry Potter wasn't the only series with high production films being released at that time. J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings was hugely popular, and it's massive fan base made it a box office hit. Honestly, when Lord of the Rings first came out, I had no interest in it whatsoever. Only after all three films had been released on VHS was I able to watch them, and at that point in my life, I really didn't get the movies. But having viewed them again within the past year, I have gained a huge understanding as to why they are so appraised, and I can confidently say that the Lord of the Rings series is the better series, at least in terms of movies. The reason is that with Harry Potter, the first three films are fantastic, but as they moved along in the series, there were some very specific things that I simply had some qualms with. In Lord of the Rings, all three films are very cohesive, so it is difficult to say that I like one film better than any of the others, and thus, I love the entire series of films equally.

Why compare?

If the two series aren't competing against one another, how can you, or anyone else for that matter, make a claim as to which one is better? There are so many attributing factors that go into both novels and movies and so many subjective concepts that directing requires that it's almost impossible to compare the ideas of Rowling to those of Tolkien or Lucas to Roddenberry. I think it's stupid that we consistently find the need to qualify things like this so that one always has to be greater than the other.

Again, these forms of art are so open and broad in their styling that comparing two vastly different styles is rendered ultimately pointless. It's like trying to compare classic rock to ghetto rap (which I wouldn't mind doing in another blog post if possible). There are a few common elements that you can qualify, but everything is done in such a different manner that there is no reason to qualify them.

star warsssssssssss

i would definetly have to say that star wars is much better than star trek. despite the bias of having a few star wars films come out during my childhood, i believe i have a more fair view on the subject than most, as my father is a star trek fanatic and forces me to watch it all the time. i find the star trek series to be quite entertaining, but the aspect of it being a television series rather than a movie series really turns me off to it. in order to follow the story it requires much more time and effort, and also more money must be expended to get the whole story. i can buy one set of 6 dvds for the whole star wars collection, which is a lot less than all the seasons of star trek. this has led to me actually watching every star wars movie, fully understanding, appreciating, and liking the story it presents. i have fond memories of going thru the series as a kid with my uncle, watching all six movies in the order they were meant to be watched in, and in the HD digitally remastered versions. this is the reason star wars is better to me.

does anyone else notice the new blogger formatting

Okay, first off Star Wars beats star trek. I say this even though I have seen maybe a total of two hours of star trek and every star wars movie at least 3 times each. I am biased and totally unqualified to compare the two, but I do anyway. My dad loves star trek and star wars, but he is upstairs and I am too lazy to get his opinion for this blog. Star Wars was crudely made and riddled with inconsistencies, but the juxtaposition of it with freaking awesome characters and John Williams made it worthy to occupy a large amount of my hard drive. John Williams lead my emotions, by the hand, through the sequentially crooked series; just as Star Wars themed legos seemed to conduct most of my residential childhood activities.
Okay now I actually have seen both Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter series, but only read the books of the latter. The LotR books eye me down from their perch, high upon the tallest shelf; and they kind of do take up the entire shelf. The two are almost equal in greatness but LotR takes the cake for best series. It might be the extraordinary story line, the textbook-like detail of peoples and languages, or the cinematic war scenes that tip it over Harry Potter, but its definitely not a huge coltish fanbase (harry potter owns one of those). Harry Potter does have emotion, a few characters that might or might not have been changed out after a few movies, and the mysteries of magic, but it's seven books do not trump the LotR's 3 (plus the hobbit).