mikeyfreshh t1_iufc4zr wrote
I don't think you can really compare them and I'm not sure why you'd want to. They were made 25 years apart on vastly different budgets with different levels of technology available. Star Wars is an original story rather than an adaptation of existing work like LotR. They're both groundbreaking blockbuster trilogies and I think it's doing both of them a disservice to try to put them against each other instead of just appreciating them for what they are
Chen_Geller t1_iujz06j wrote
> They were made 25 years apart on vastly different budgets with different levels of technology available. Star Wars is an original story rather than an adaptation of existing work like LotR.
There's a lot of truth to this. And they were made by filmmakers with starkly different styles and predilictions.
Absuridity_Octogon OP t1_iufcgn9 wrote
Star Wars was an adaptation of an existing work(King Arthur) just in a different setting. But yes I agree they shouldn’t really be compared.
mikeyfreshh t1_iufd3qp wrote
>Star Wars was an adaptation of an existing work(King Arthur) just in a different setting.
Lord of the Rings probably takes just as much from King Arthur as Star Wars does. If you wanted to accuse Star Wars of adapting anything, you could say it's just 3 or 4 Kurosawa movies mashed together and set in space
>But yes I agree they shouldn’t really be compared.
You're the one that specifically asked people to compare them
Absuridity_Octogon OP t1_iufd8o3 wrote
And I said that it was fine if you didn’t want to.
carson63000 t1_iugmmeb wrote
That assertion stretches the meaning of the word "adaptation" far beyond breaking point, imho.
Yes Star Wars had its antecedents and influences, but it was not an "adaptation" of the King Arthur story.
Absuridity_Octogon OP t1_iugncyo wrote
Yeah now that I think about it, you’re probably right.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments