In Defense of the Ring
Matthew Stork

Editor's Note: This is a letter to the editor that Matthew sent in response to the recent article from Salon.com. He did not want the article to go unchallenged.

I am writing in reponse to Jean Tang's article comparing the Lord of the Rings
first cinematic installment with the original Star Wars film. I would like to
point out that Tang briefly glosses over the minor flaws of Star Wars to
fixate on what seems to be the myriad of faults of Peter Jackson's
LOTR:Fellowship of the Ring film. Tang does point out in brief reference to
the reason that the LOTR film may not be as good as it could have been: lack
of character development. But Tang never follows through with a saving grace
for it as is so readily offered for Star Wars' weaknesses. If you are going to
adequately compare the two pleasde devote more than 2 paragraphs to Star Wars'
weak ponts and don't fixate two and one half pages on Tolkien's flaws. The
fact that Tolkiens work was literary based is exactly why Tolkien, and
subsequently, his son Christopher, did not forsee a decent homage possible on
the silver screen. His work is indeed an epic, vast and detailed, which would
have taken Jackson 5 hours to honorably retell, and this is exactly why
Jackson skipped alot of character development, so that he could get a movie
short enough to hold the attention span of the average American film-goer.

I grew up watching the Star Wars trilogy at the same time I was voraciously
reading Tolkien's work. It was after I grew older and did alot more research I
started to unravel Lucas' "Masterpiece" for what it is: an amalgamation of
"best of" ideas from other sources. Tang does address this in one brief
sentence but seems to feel that is all the explaining necessary for Star Wars
faults. I disagree. Lucas is somehow a cinematic genius for "borrowing" from
so many literary and cinematic original works? And in Tang's estimation, LOTR
is a long, boring exercise in historical fantasy with no attention to
humanity? As an avid fan of both works, the Star Wars saga, and LOTR, I still
appreciate Star Wars but see it's flaws without the rose-colored glasses Tang
seems to wear. I acknowledge Tolkien's flaws as well, afterall he borrowed
ideas from Welsh and Scottish folklore for some of his inspiration, but that
is the difference. It was inspiration. Not a rehash of others ideas, cobbled
with a glossed over story that had no real depth. By this I refer to Lucas'
inability to develop a substrata for his characters background. Names and
references are thrown into the wind to act like "TolkienLite"... to create the
illusion of a vast, epic world. Lucas ended up scrambling in hindsight to
create the lore to back up his ideas. If Star Wars had never been a financial
success, I doubt Lucas would have ever have bothered to complete his "epic".
Whereas, LOTR was Tolkien's whole life, it consumed him, and drove him to
finish it regardless of financial success. So I guess we are at an impasse.
Tang refers to Tolkien's work (and Jackson's handling of it) as too serious,
to thinly-developed, and too unconcerned with the human equation. Tang lifts
up Star Wars to such high status, referring to the fact that it's just cinema
and good cinema at that and that over-blown literary work has no place in the
cinematic theater.

Well, I can tell you that this fan of both sagas would rather have the LOTR
books and a credible cinematic treatment than the Star Wars saga and books
that were developed afterwards to cash in on the success of the movie.
Tolkien's work is the one which stands out in my psyche as something to take
with me through life's journey. Star Wars is but a fond memory of a moment in
my youth. I may not even see the Attack of the Clones if rumor be true that
the cinematic genius of Lucas has resorted to putting "boy band" cameos in his
next installment. I can hardly wait for his shameless merchandising ploy of
having Jar Jar Binks eating Doritos in some scene of the third and final
installment. If CGI had not evolved to the level that it has, I don't feel
Lucas would ever have attempted 3 more films simply because that is what's
required to gloss over his weak storyline.