The Lord of the Rings movie series in superior to the Star Wars movie series.

Merchandise sells is relevant to this debate. Again, if you go back and actually read what I said which seemed to be pretty clear, you'd know that the merchandise sells point to two specific things I mentioned that you completely ignored. "This means A: More people are into Star Wars. B: Star was is more well known. - Star Wars" This is a fact. Also, once again, I'm going over more accomplishments Star Wars has clearly had over LOTR, and you are trying your hardest to dismiss that, except it's perfectly fine to say LOTR films had better ratings than SW films (which I'll get into as you read). So to me, it's clear LOTR films have no real accomplishments other than some ratings compared to all the things Star Wars is doing. You seem to be a bigot now, and dismissing everything as "irrelevant" but your IMDb scores you posted. So apparently, you are saying LOTR is better than SW cause it had higher ratings but yet dismiss merchandise sells as irrelevant? By the way, you do know that critics are normal people right? They offer their professional opinion and thoughts, and slap a sticker on it, just because something had better ratings than something else, doesn't mean it's good. Hell, in that case, Justin Bieber would be the best singer ever, and Kanye West of just being on the top list in billboards. In your point, any Call Of Duty game is far better than lets say a Halo game or something that may have scored a point lower, or better than Kingdom Hearts. NO. They are giving their professional opinion and critique, this does NOT in any way mean something is better, but gives you more so an idea on how it could be based on the reviews. Star Wars itself has scored highly in the years, and has remained highly in the rankings ever since they released. That is showing the test of time. Only logical point you have what so ever, is that the lord of the rings won more awards perhaps, but that is all, but don't dismiss as merchandise sells, popularity as being irrelevant to the discussion as they clearly are a factor in any movie. - I have watched all LOTR movies, and read the first book (although the book is irrelevant to the discussion). Obviously, I wouldn't be having this debate with you if I hadn't seen the films, and in my very first post, I said I liked Lord Of The Rings personally more but acknowledge Star Wars is way better. It's a matter of you refusing to read, and more so just skimming through picking and choosing what lines I write down you want to read. As for Frodo, Sam, and everyone else, who honestly talks about them when you bring up the Lord Of The Rings? Who? Little. This is a fact based on personal experience, and just web surfing all these years. No one mentions Frodo, maybe what 1 out of 10 people? You know who they are going to mention tho? GANDALF. Now go to Star Wars... Who do people talk about? Tons of characters. Nothing more than needs to be said than that. http://www.empireonline.com... Just about all 30 of these characters are constantly talked about at one point or another. Definitely the top 10 for sure, but when we talk Lord Of The Rings, you hear nothing of Frodo being mentioned. As for comic con. It's clear that people more so dress up for SW than LOTR. I don't have to be there everyday to know. I've been there, I've seen it. You can go to youtube and see it for yourself. There is more SW pride there than anything, and to dismiss that and say to the readers of this debate "well, they're just dressing up cause their more excited for the release of Episode VII." is just not having no awareness. Star Wars is always at comic con, year in and year out. As I have said, it's made the most impact on cultures today, and well known across the globe compared to a movie series that scored better? I certainly hope LOTR scored better because the Star Wars films themselves are older movies with less technology, camera quality, and everything beyond, and yet it remains in high rankings and regarded by many to be the best original film trilogy or film series ever made. True, popularity doesn't mean something is better, but it shows you what a majority is into. The merchandise sells, show you what the majority is into. That is SW. Again, you go on about the story, dismiss character building which is a big part of the story. Star Wars has ton of bad guys, all well known, all in high rankings of greatest film villains of all time. Again, no one talks Frodo, or the other hobbits, it's mainly Gandalf. For what it is, some of the special effects in Lord Of The Rings sucked, and just meant for the cool factor as I've said earlier in a different post. Take for example Gandalf blowing a smoke ring at bilbo's party in Fellowship Of The Ring. Smoke cannot be made to travel horizontally, and basically shows this is just a cheap special effect, and don't act for a minute like LOTR isn't flawed because there is many bloopers to be had with that long of a film, and logic that just falls off. I know I'm on the Gandalf talk, but this will be the last thing I have to say about Gandalf. Have you wondered how the Lord Of The Rings would have done if he never came back after the first movie? I bet it wouldn't have done as well. Peter Jackson must have had George Lucas syndromes when making the movies and it clearly shows in some parts of each film. Some will know what I mean by that and be able to see where George Lucas inspiration may have took place. So when we talk about stories between the films, you dismiss characters building like I said but rather talk more about the plot. Star Wars at its time was the basically the first of its kind, and like I already said before, did things no film has done before. Lord Of The Rings wasn't new in the effects that it used, some effects fail completely off and just cheap. So as flashy as it may have been, doesn't mean that it wasn't flawed. Star Wars felt more alive throughout the movies and you are telling me that a the lord of the rings battle scenes is more interesting than a light show? Really? As if we haven't seen a million films before that used similar fighting techniques that Lord Of The Rings used. Don't forget, it's impossible for a woman to just slay everyone by herself (yeah that's good logic) and don't forget to mention when the films weren't peaking, they had to throw stuff in as a filler gap. Hell, the movies are longer than the books. Yes, the Arthur devoted an incredible amount of time creating a world (which by the way isn't that unique as an interpretation of that same world could be described as heaven and hell, which those idea's isn't unique as it's been done, over the years prior to LOTR films. I want to retract back to a statement I made on the languages, and repeat that and the statement I made was that what is the point of having all these languages if the characters aren't as memorable which despite your efforts to say they are, when clearly no one discusses them but one? The movies were a little too flashy for their own good if you ask me. The Arthur's work all those years sorta was a fail in that department as it never truly paid off outside of the "wow factor" you get when you see something happen and that something looks cool. When you sit down and think about that, then you'll know and again, there was many flaws in LOTR films. Star Wars original story was original. Lord Of The Rings is PRE-WRITTEN and laid out for Peter Jackson, and again the idea of that type of warfare has been done in films before, so it honestly isn't unique. Above all, LOTR is a good film series, it's worthy of debating if it is or isn't good as Star Wars, and both film series will be talked about for a long time to come, but IT'S NOT STAR WARS. The things Star Wars has done for the film industry and the culture it brings? It's amazing. It's a series that will stand the test of time, regardless. Nerds, throw your life sabers up. That is all.