PDA

View Full Version : Schindler's List vs. LOTR


springscansing
Jun 3, 2003, 09:53 PM
This discussing has been rageing about online for some reason. Which is the better movie, Schindler's List vs. LOTR?

I am just curious if anyone here is downright stupid enough to think LOTR is a better movie. It's one thing to think that they're simply not comparable, but if anyone actually things LOTR is better (either one, whichever) I think they seriously need to be shot.

Anyone care to challange? heh

springscansing
Jun 3, 2003, 10:05 PM
Oh come on there must be some frodo-wannabes out there who think that the story of a magic ring is more moving than the holocaust. Any takers?

Maybe the mac users are just too smart, heh.

medea
Jun 3, 2003, 10:30 PM
umm those are two vary different movies, not comparable by any means......

MrMacMan
Jun 3, 2003, 10:49 PM
um... wtf...

I would say LOTR, because I am de-sentised by my rabbi showing me and my class 10000000 + of those movies, sorry.

I gotta go with the LOTR.

springscansing
Jun 3, 2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by medea
umm those are two vary different movies, not comparable by any means......

Agreed.

springscansing
Jun 3, 2003, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
um... wtf...

I would say LOTR, because I am de-sentised by my rabbi showing me and my class 10000000 + of those movies, sorry.

I gotta go with the LOTR.

Then you're a downright fool.

Muffinking
Jun 3, 2003, 10:59 PM
cripes man.. I registered for this forum just to post a response to a dumb question like that..


both are fantastic movies.... quite hard to compare a movie about Genocide and another about.... well.. wait a min... LOTR is kinda of about Genocide to a degree...

screw it... what I said before.. both are great...


although one is a tad bit more heart wrenching than the other..

shadowfax
Jun 3, 2003, 11:00 PM
i'll challenge medea at any rate. and springs, sort of. they are comparable. for one thing, they are both films. they both involve plots, struggles, acting, and themes.

so, judging from a special effects point of view, or, since such are really absent from schindler's list, an action film point of view, LOTR would be a much better movie. in terms of themes, i would say the movies are on close grounds. Lord of the rings is full of important, value themes like friendship, sacrifice, loyalty, the struggle against grave evil. schindlier's list has a smaller tab of themes, but delves rather deeper into them.

they are definitely comparable in some ways. on the other hand, either one could be better, depending on your criteria for comparing them. i would personally think that, overall, whatever the hell that means, Schindler's List would be superior, but that's maybe just me.

maradong
Jun 3, 2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by medea
umm those are two vary different movies, not comparable by any means......
true.
i like them both

Ugg
Jun 3, 2003, 11:01 PM
I liked them both but there is no way to compare them. Schindler's list is a movie based on real events whereas LOTR is pure fantasy. If you were to compare LOTR and the Matrix then I think you would be comparing apples to apples and penguins to penguins. If you were to compare Schindler's list to The Mission then I would have to say that I preferred The Mission. The destruction of South America's indigenous people by the Catholic Church is a story rarely told and had much more of a long term impact on me than did SL.

springscansing
Jun 3, 2003, 11:02 PM
I personally think if you compare them, Shindler's list makes LOTR look downright stupid... but that's just me I guess. ;-)

springscansing
Jun 3, 2003, 11:05 PM
Heather is a hottie.

shadowfax
Jun 3, 2003, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
I liked them both but there is no way to compare them. Schindler's list is a movie based on real events whereas LOTR is pure fantasy. If you were to compare LOTR and the Matrix then I think you would be comparing apples to apples and penguins to penguins. you're thinking too small though. movies can be compared between genres. especially a film "based on" real events. that's still fiction anyway. the point is that the films both have messages, both have dramatic quality, conflict, and so on. these aspects of each film can be compared, by whatever standard.

Ugg
Jun 3, 2003, 11:10 PM
Everyone has the right to their own opinion but how do you feel that you can compare them? What is the basis for your opinion? I am asking in all sincerity and have no desire to start a flame war.

springscansing
Jun 3, 2003, 11:10 PM
yeah shadowfox is right. I was just pandering to the left before...

shadowfax
Jun 3, 2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
Everyone has the right to their own opinion but how do you feel that you can compare them? What is the basis for your opinion? I am asking in all sincerity and have no desire to start a flame war. like i said, you could say that the acting in schindler's list was far more convincing and well-put-together than Lord of the Rings. that's a valid comparison. you could also say that while the lord of the rings was rich in numerous themes (such as the ones i mentioned previously), while schindler's list chooses comparatively fewer themes but goes much deeper into them throughout the film. also, you could say that while the lord of the rings captures your imagination and tries to put you on the edge of your seat, Schindler's list admonishes you to search your soul and examine the darker side of humanity and perhaps the bit of practical heroism in some.

they are very different. but this very fact makes them comparable. comparisons aren't limited to "who did the same thing better?" questions. does that clarify?

by the way springs, my handle, shadowfax, comes from LOTR (i started using it long before the movies came out though, i like LOTR because of the books, which are fabulous). It is the name of Gandalf's horse. it wasn't a fruity-looking white horse like in the movie either. he appeared pitch black by night and bright white by day, and was a "captain of the horses of middle earth." they go into detail about him much more in the book, naturally.

Ugg
Jun 3, 2003, 11:40 PM
they are very different. but this very fact makes them comparable. comparisons aren't limited to "who did the same thing better?" questions. does that clarify?

by shadowfax

I certainly see your point when it comes to stagecraft and themes and soulsearching. In those terms, yes, every movie can be compared to every other movie. What I disagree with is lumping fiction with fantasy. I knew that LOTR was based on fantasy and SL was based on real life. My expectations of each film were based on that difference. To lump all films together does a disservice to those who watch them as well as those who make them. Books are written on paper but I would never compare Madame Bovary to a Lovecraft novel. Yes they are both novels, yes you might find some moralizing but just because they are printed on paper does not make them comparable. When reading a classic novel I don't compare it to a current science fiction bestseller nor would I compare that scifi bestseller to a Grisham novel. Comparisons should be given context.

GeneR
Jun 3, 2003, 11:41 PM
I think the answer is: n=5 for all values of x. heh heh heh.

:D

shadowfax
Jun 4, 2003, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
by shadowfax

I certainly see your point when it comes to stagecraft and themes and soulsearching. In those terms, yes, every movie can be compared to every other movie. What I disagree with is lumping fiction with fantasy. I knew that LOTR was based on fantasy and SL was based on real life. My expectations of each film were based on that difference. To lump all films together does a disservice to those who watch them as well as those who make them. Books are written on paper but I would never compare Madame Bovary to a Lovecraft novel. Yes they are both novels, yes you might find some moralizing but just because they are printed on paper does not make them comparable. When reading a classic novel I don't compare it to a current science fiction bestseller nor would I compare that scifi bestseller to a Grisham novel. Comparisons should be given context. i was giving them context. i wasn't lumping them together at all. both of our outlooks are compatible--complementary would be more accurate. while both films can be compared, both contain fundamental differences that really should not be compared. so, on one level, it is good to critique their entertainment values via comparison, but the subject matter they deal with are of course incomparable (the sacrilege of comparing a mythological fantasy to the slaughter of 6 million people).

that's what i meant when i said you're thinking too small. there are lot's of aspects to this.

but of course, the only thing that gives comparison value is context.

Tequila Grandma
Jun 4, 2003, 12:31 AM
Both are very different films with very different objectives, and I feel that the "Lord of the Rings" films accomplish what they set out to do far more effectively than "Schindler's List" does.

One thing anybody should know about me before getting into a discussion with me about film is that I HATE Spielberg. Well, actually, I don't so much hate him as much as I hate the fact that he's regarded by so many as one of the greatest directors of all time. His direction, to me, is adequate, but nothing impressive -- he's about one notch above your standard Hollywood director. All of his films that everybody loves and finds so entertaining (The "Indiana Joes" films, "Jaws", "The Color Purple", "Saving Private Ryan", the list goes on and on...), I've found to be incredibly boring. To me, his best work thus far is "A.I.", and I think that was due mostly to the decades of work Stanley Kubrick (a director whose "legendary" tag is actually warranted) contributed before dying.

So... "Schindler's List". This could possibly be the most overrated film of all time. I won't go so far as to call it bad, but I do consider it a failure of a film. "Schindler's List", for me, is the very definition of boring and pretentious. Most of the acting is stale, and the film is poorly paced. I should really go on, but instead I'll just say that there are MUCH better films out there that take place during the Holocaust. Last year's "The Piainist" being the most recent example.

Neither "Lord of the Rings" or "Schindler's List" I'd consider great films. In terms of actual substance and thought, "Schindler's List" doesn't necessarily have a lot (it just thinks it does), and neither does LOTR (which never acts like it does). Since the two films are equal on this level, I'll have to judge by entertainment value -- and "Lord of the Rings" is many times more entertaining than "Schindler's List", so I give it the edge.

Arigato,
Brook

Rower_CPU
Jun 4, 2003, 01:00 AM
Cut the spam out or the thread will get shut down.

springscansing
Jun 4, 2003, 01:09 AM
There's not much spam here. Chill.

Royal Pineapple
Jun 4, 2003, 01:09 AM
it is a question of preference. i havent seen schindlers list (never got around to it) but LOTR is a great film, throughly intertaining. therefor i must vote for LOTR

shadowfax
Jun 4, 2003, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Cut the spam out or the thread will get shut down. why didn't you just delete the 2 or 3 posts in here that are blatant spam and not make the threat? the spammers aren't even participating in our discussion. there is no reason to shut it down.

Rower_CPU
Jun 4, 2003, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by springscansing
There's not much spam here. Chill.

There shouldn't be any.

Replying to your own thread after 12 minutes, and mutliple double posts with very little content is spam.

springscansing
Jun 4, 2003, 01:17 AM
I'll use the edit button next time then instead of reply... will that satisfy you?

MrMacMan
Jun 4, 2003, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by springscansing
Then you're a downright fool.

I disagree, but you will just flame me with out reason again, so I will not repeat myself.

I've seen hundreds of these movies, more and more they become less appealing there message is destroyied.

In a movie sense LOTR OWNS Schindler's List.

GeneR
Jun 4, 2003, 07:03 AM
What's the point of asking this question and comparing these two movies? Seriously. Isn't it like comparing Apples with Oranges? Can we compare the fight scenes against the orcs in LOTR against the appearance of the girl in the little red dress throughout Schindler's List? Sorry, but this comparison that brought up this thread in the first place baffles me to say the least.

Schindler's List...
Spielberg's genius in Schindler's List is evident in his ability to craft an experience, which -- for most people who have been pounded over the head with "holocaust=horrific atrocity" (lest we forget) movies over the years -- still grips us in ways that most of these other concentration camp films do not.

To find the personal story within the context of the greater experience is to bring poignancy to an otherwise numbing journey. The tone of the film is heavy and yet not overly-burdensome.

You simply have to ask yourself if you're ever flipping channels and see a holocaust theme movie and mutter, "Oy, NAHM (not another holocaust movie)!" and then flip the channel. You probably don't have that problem with Schindler. At least I don't.

I could probably watch Schindler a dozen times and still appreciate the power of the film.

By the way, if you ever venture to the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance (Good grief, I think I probably mis-spelled the last name! Never could get it right! heh. :D) you may wish to sit in on one of the testimonials from one of the holocaust survivors who volunteer their time to tell their tale. It's pretty amazing stuff. And, like Schindler's List -- the experience makes you think.

(On a side note, on these epic-type films Spielberg has an enduring ability to come from a place of compassion towards all of his characters...both Nazi and Jews alike. Saving Private Ryan is a good example of this. Rather than drape characters in the traditional cloaks of "Good" and "Evil" he has a tendency to show the humanity that exists on every side. I think that's a mark of a good storyteller and a good humanitarian. )

Lord of the Rings...
On the otherhand, LOTR, has merit on its own. Peter Jackson did a great job with these three books. I'm thinking: thank God, this wasn't a books-into-movie production where all dialogue was drawn verbatim for Tolkien's works! (In that case you might as well have brought your LOTR book into the theatre and read along by flashlight!)

He took artistic license, however the theme of the trilogy remains intact. And that is quite an achievement for an epic of this length. Did I enjoy LOTR? Yeah, they were pretty cool so far. A bit too dark in some ways for my tastes.

However, I still think they are good movies.

A reiteration: What's the point of comparing these two? Still baffled.

:p

groovebuster
Jun 4, 2003, 07:10 AM
@Tequila Grandma:

I totally agree with everything you said, couldn't have said it better.

groovebuster

iMook
Jun 4, 2003, 07:50 AM
my .02:

LOTR:
It's a story film, plain and simple. Yes, it's a story of trial and tribulation, of toil and hardship, of good vs. evil. But,at its heart, as Tolkien said himself (after people analyzed it to death) that he just wanted to write a good story. The fact that there are those who are seriously comparing Schindler's List and LOTR speaks the creative talents of Tolkien. he did not set out to write an epic tale of morality, ethics, and honor. Those are included, yes, but only (IMHO) because they are foundations of the traditional mold of quest story. Observe:
love story - check
the good guys are the underdogs - check
kings - check
war - check
death - check
magic - check
...the list goes on.

It's a very good story, but only a story. Comparing it to a depiction of the real-life experiences of remarkable people during the Holocaust is, for lack of a suitable euphemism, a disgrace to what Schindler's List is about.

Schindler's List:
It's been a LONG while since I've watched this movie, so I may be off a bit on some issues. Schindler's List is a tale of oppression and compassion during the Holocaust. Now, I think that few (if any) here dispute the reality of the Holocaust. Schindler's List aims to tell the world of some of the inhuman feats performed during the Holocuast in the name of human compassion. i don't think Schindler's List was made to be the entertainment event of the year. It didn't aim to be the "HOLY MOTHER OF A GOAT! THAT WAS SCHINDLER'S LIST!!!!!" No. I think it aimed more for a "... wow." response. LOTR aims for the "HOLY MOTHER OF A GOAT!" response. Thus, to compare LOTR and Schindler's List is very high praise for Schindler's List purely entertaining (in the most general sense) aspects. LOTR was made to be entertainment, w/ the requisite special effects and sweeping landscapes. To compare Schindler's List to LOTR when it comes to purely sensory aspects is high praise for a movie like Schindler's List. At the same time, comparing the impact and story of Schindler's List and LOTR is very high praise for LOTR's story, since that's all it is: a story. It was made to be purely a story that you could read to your kids. Schindler's List is a social commentary is its purest form.


Thus, I believe that if you are to compare Schindler's List and LOTR, there would naturally be VERY different opinions (as we've seen) regarding which one is "holistically better". Each excels (compared the other) in different areas of movie experience.


finis

hvfsl
Jun 4, 2003, 08:08 AM
I want know is the orginal poster Jewish since these seem to be odd movies to compare, one being about Jews, the other writen by a Christian. I have only seen LOTR so I could not really compare but it is in my top ten movies of all time. Anyway I expect more people think Titanic is better because more people went to see it. Besides it should not be the story you are comparing but the overal movie, which was made better, better script extra. If you want to come the story of Schindler's List then compare it to something else in reality.

WinterMute
Jun 4, 2003, 08:14 AM
Niether film stands against the book(s) they were based on, Jackson's triumph in LOTR was NOT ********** it up so badly that your average Tolkienite would have lynched him, and making a set of movies that entertains those who can't tell a hobbit from a hole in the road.

On the other hand Speilberg creates a film that strives for authenticity in deed and characterisation and ends up (as most of his films do) wallowing in pathos.

I felt cheated by both films, neither director went far enough, and the experience of the stories in print is infinitely more powerful to anyone with an imagination and the intellectual and emotional muscle to wield it.

Very few movies convey the full impact of the literary source. Maybe only Shawshank Redemption or Alien in IMO.

Just to confuse the matter, I thoroughly enjoyed LOTR as a spectacle, but all Schindler's List made me do was go re-read half a dozen Holocaust books, histories and accounts mainly.

Conclusion: go read a book.:D

tazo
Jun 4, 2003, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by medea
umm those are two vary different movies, not comparable by any means......

springcansing said that they are not comparable, he just asked you to say what you thought was the better movie, based on your likes, dislikes.

I have never seen Schindler's list. I have never seen LOTR. But I know well enough to know that I hate LOTR-esque movies, and therefore I choose Schindler's list.

tazo
Jun 4, 2003, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
I liked them both but there is no way to compare them. Schindler's list is a movie based on real events whereas LOTR is pure fantasy. If you were to compare LOTR and the Matrix then I think you would be comparing apples to apples and penguins to penguins. If you were to compare Schindler's list to The Mission then I would have to say that I preferred The Mission. The destruction of South America's indigenous people by the Catholic Church is a story rarely told and had much more of a long term impact on me than did SL.

I saw that and was amazed at how good a job acting Robert DeNiro did in that movie-very compelling.

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by WinterMute

Just to confuse the matter, I thoroughly enjoyed LOTR as a spectacle, but all Schindler's List made me do was go re-read half a dozen Holocaust books, histories and accounts mainly.

Conclusion: go read a book.:D

For me, SL was done and over the minute I left the theater although the picture of the little girl in the red coat will remain with me forever. An excellent effect IMO. It is a subject that has been done over and over again and didn't really shed any light on the topic.

Spielberg is the ultimate American, what more can I say. The field is flooded with American movies, it gets old after awhile to constantly hear only the American viewpoint. I am anxiously awaiting the release of Dogville here in the US as well as Goodbye Lenin.

WinterMute
Jun 4, 2003, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by tazo

I have never seen Schindler's list. I have never seen LOTR. But I know well enough to know that I hate LOTR-esque movies, and therefore I choose Schindler's list.

Offering an opinion on something you know nothing about?

Doesn't sound like you at all tazo...:D

Zaid
Jun 4, 2003, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
Spielberg is the ultimate American, what more can I say. The field is flooded with American movies, it gets old after awhile to constantly hear only the American viewpoint. I am anxiously awaiting the release of Dogville here in the US as well as Goodbye Lenin.

There was quite a good movie a while back called Enemy at the Gate. It told the story of Stalingrad from the perspective of a russian sniper. I really enjoyed it because we saw the war from a different perspective to the usual Anglo-American view.

Its just crazy when you realise that Soviet casualties absolutely dwarfed other allied losses, and how little we see of the russian side of the war in the WWII genre.

Foxer
Jun 4, 2003, 09:53 AM
Why on earth are we comparing these films? Are we trying to determine the "best film over 8 hours long."

(By the way, which LOTR film are we talking about? Both? For some reason I thought we were talking about TTT.)

Given the subject matter, I think that SL is given a "wide bearth." It is a well-made movie that took the less-is-more approach to emphasize the story and events over the film itself. By doing so, it ironically attracts attention to itself. LOTR is a big, sweeping epic - opposite end of the story-telling spectrum.

Personally, I resepct what SL is. However, even though I own the laserdisc, I couldn't tell you the last time I wanted to watch it. If I watched it again, it would be to see Ray Finnes and Qui-Gon Jin, both of whom I enjoy as actors. On the other hand, the LOTR movies are worth watching over and over, and continue to be rewarding.

(disclaimer: I'm not some LOTR nut. I am currently reading the books for the first time, beacuse I found TTT a very good film.)

springscansing
Jun 4, 2003, 10:42 AM
I'm just having some fun. No one should take ANYTHING I say in this thread seriously (including you MacMan).

As for me, no I'm not Jewish, I'm agnostic.

jethroted
Jun 4, 2003, 12:08 PM
I am going to say LOTR was better. I think that it is one of my favorite movies of all time. Schindler's List wasn't even good enough to make me watch it twice, so i don't think it's that good. Just because I say this does not make me against jews or racist. I based my opinion purely on the movie itself. Not which movie was more "important", but which was actually a better movie.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 4, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by springscansing
I'm just having some fun. No one should take ANYTHING I say in this thread seriously (including you MacMan).

Unless you explicitly tell people you're not serious there's every reason to think you're being serious, especially if you don't use smilies. This only causes trouble and incites the natives.

In the future to avoid conflict and flaming - use some sort of indication that you're 'having fun'.

Otherwise with reported threads more drastic measures will have to follow.

Thank you,

D

springscansing
Jun 4, 2003, 12:15 PM
But if I outright say "this is for fun," then it kind of kills it, don't you think?

I think anyone with their head on straight should realize I'm not being too serious here. If they can't do that then I'm sorry, but that's kind of pathetic. I shouldn't have to stick a smiley face next to everything.

:)

Mr. Anderson
Jun 4, 2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by springscansing
But if I outright say "this is for fun," then it kind of kills it, don't you think?

I think anyone with their head on straight should realize I'm not being too serious here. If they can't do that then I'm sorry, but that's kind of pathetic. I shouldn't have to stick a smiley face next to everything.

Well, you know what? You can't make the assumption that everyone is going to understand implied sarcasm, its just not possible. Then the mods get all sorts of reported posts because of this and other members reactions to taking it the wrong way, flames and general stupidity. In the end we have more work to do.

You know what the solution is when this happens because of one member's continuing tone?

D

springscansing
Jun 4, 2003, 12:25 PM
No reason to threaten me.

You're actually telling me people are reporting this thread?

You know now since the moderators got involved, half this thread IS spam. It was fine before...

Tequila Grandma
Jun 4, 2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
I am anxiously awaiting the release of Dogville here in the US as well as Goodbye Lenin.
"Dogville" should be quite interesting -- a film set in America with many American themes, created by a man who has never once been to the U.S. I'm looking forward to it :D

Arigato,
Brook

Rower_CPU
Jun 4, 2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by springscansing
No reason to threaten me.

You're actually telling me people are reporting this thread?

You know now since the moderators got involved, half this thread IS spam. It was fine before...

You're entitled to your opinion, but to other people it's spam.

Less than a quarter of this thread is related to this side discussion, and with that it's closed.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 4, 2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by springscansing
No reason to threaten me.

You're actually telling me people are reporting this thread?

I'm not threatening, just warning, things end up going south real fast with certain topics - this thread is flirting around the edges of some of them.

And there has been plenty of spam here and you've basically told the mods to 'chill'. Show a little respect. ;)

D