Schindler's List vs. LOTR

Discussion in 'Wasteland' started by springscansing, Jun 3, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #1
    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
     
  2. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #2
    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.
     
  3. macrumors 68030

    medea

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Location:
    Madison, Wi
    #3
    umm those are two vary different movies, not comparable by any means......
     
  4. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #4
    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.
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #5
    Agreed.
     
  6. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #6
    Then you're a downright fool.
     
  7. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Location:
    Canada eh.
    #7
    stupid question...

    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..
     
  8. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    maradong

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Location:
    Luxembourg
    #9
    true.
    i like them both
     
  10. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #10
    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.
     
  11. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #11
    I personally think if you compare them, Shindler's list makes LOTR look downright stupid... but that's just me I guess. ;-)
     
  12. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
  13. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #13
    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.
     
  14. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #14
    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.
     
  15. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #15
    yeah shadowfox is right. I was just pandering to the left before...
     
  16. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #16
    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.
     
  17. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    GeneR

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Location:
    The land of delusions, CA.
    #18
    Hmmm. Tough question.

    I think the answer is: n=5 for all values of x. heh heh heh.

    :D
     
  19. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 17, 2003
    Location:
    Boston MA
    #20
    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
     
  21. Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #21
    Cut the spam out or the thread will get shut down.
     
  22. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
  23. macrumors 65816

    Royal Pineapple

    #23
    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
     
  24. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #24
    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.
     
  25. Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #25
    There shouldn't be any.

    Replying to your own thread after 12 minutes, and mutliple double posts with very little content is spam.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page