LOTR, The Matrix, and the Star Wars PT: Which trilogy will stand the test of time?

A flubbed line is always a flubbed line. A missed cue is always a missed cue. ani, you could at least acknowledge that.

No I don't have to acknowledge because it was not a missed cue. If you feel it was fine. But for me and others who liked that scene it was not a missed cue.

I don't know how many times it has to be said that jsut because you thought something was bad does not make it so for ever one.

Some people think that the Dumb reality show the with Ozzy is great TV. Well I don't think it is. To me it is the worst thing to ever be put on TV. So because others liked that show does that mean I have to acknowledge that it is a good show? No I will never do that because it is a bad show. I'm glad Ozzy's show is over and I hope it never comes back. I hated the show that much.

I really like AOTC. So to acknowledge that it had bad acting. Well for you it did. For me it did not. So I will not acknowledge bad acting when I did not see bad acting. I will not acknowledge something as a good show when I did not like it and when I felt that it was a really dumb show.

I mean should I start to acknowledge Britney Spears as a good singer when because she sold 1,000,000 + CD's even though I don't like her music? No I never will. For me she is a really bad singer. And she's even worse when she trying to act.

 

I love OZZY OSBOURNE. He is a hero.

 

ani, do you know what a missed cue is?

Either an actor hits his or her assigned mark at the designated moment, or they don't. That's a matter of time and space, not opinion.

Durwood, I'll spell this out for you: ani has argued in the past (and seems to stand by it now) that any possible technical flub is objectively acceptable, since there might be someone somewhere who might like it.

To argue that that position's logical extreme somehow doesn't apply is to argue that "everything comes down to opinion, but at the same time not everything comes down to opinion."

 

If everyone's opinion is equal about the quality of a given subject (i.e. Natalie Portman's performance in the PT thus far), then why is there such vehemence on both sides of the argument? To my eyes, it looks as if both sides are trying to sway each other into believing their respective opinions, which obviously isn't going to happen. So, why bother?

Just a thought.

 

ani has argued in the past (and seems to stand by it now) that any possible technical flub is objectively acceptable, since there might be someone somewhere who might like it.

I don't gather that ani believes what you're saying, either. I'm really not sure where you came up with that notion, and you sure don't seem in a hurry to let it go. I just love arguing with bashers. [rolls_eyes]

 

TadjiStation post remind me why I don't like posting in this thread. So I'm not going to say anything more.

DG I'm not answering that because I already did.

 

Here's the discussion I was referring to, Durwood. Check about midway down the first page, where we start discussing the bluescreen issue.

I'm not even going to answer that.

Why doesn't that surprise me?

DG I'm not answering that because I already did.

So I suppose then, when the Iraqi Information Minister stood in front of an American tank division and announced, "There are no American tanks in Baghdad!", that there were no American tanks in Baghdad for him.

Reality's reality.

 

So I suppose then, when the Iraqi Information Minister stood in front of an American tank division and announced, "There are no American tanks in Baghdad!", that there were no American tanks in Baghdad for him.

Reality's reality.

God but I love when people try and use wacky examples like this one, Something that has absolutely no resemblence to, and no bearing on, the original subject. These are great.

Yes, reality IS reality. With a little searching, you could find out if there are any American tanks in Baghdad. Obviously this can be proven or disproven. You are talking about a solid, tangible object and whether or not it is physically in a certain place. That isn't even CLOSE to whether or not someone liked Natalie Portman's acting in AOTC. That's like comparing apples to Buick's and saying apples taste better. It's just silly.

Whether or Natalie Portman's acting was good or bad cannot be proven or disproven. It can only be opined. I know the film school people don't like hearing that, but it's true all the same.

Or maybe you are trying to say that all the people who say they liked Ms. Portman's acting are lying? I mean, if you're comparing us to the Iraqi information minister, that's the only other conclusion we can come to. And once again, that's just another silly little argument, and anyone making it should be ashamed of themselves. In fact, I find it hard to believe that this ISN'T what you are saying. It's too bad really, because for a while you had some compelling things to say, but now you have reduced yourslef to calling other people liars simply because you don't share their opinion of something. How sad.

 

Monkey, I'm having a different conversation with ani than I am with you.

I was explaining that a missed cue isn't a matter of opinion; either an actor hits the assigned mark at the predetermined moment, or he doesn't. As I said to ani, that's a matter of time and space, not opinion; thus, saying "Whitney Houston only missed that cue for you" is like saying, "Shaq only missed that free throw for you."

I'm talking in much more general terms than I am about any specific actor; in fact, I haven't mentioned Portman in quite some time, nor have I accused her fans of lying about anything. So try not to put so many words in my mouth.

 

Funny thing is Natalie Portman said her own performance in TPM was not the best. (Her "heart wasn't in it") She tried to improve it for AOTC. I personally think it's more of the same, and in some cases worse, especially when certain scenes called for something more.

Will people here who are saying that acting ability is all down to personal opinion at least acknowledge that there is some objectivity when judging certain things?

 

Ah, I see...so that little kid I saw on stage the other day in the fifth grade play...the one who forgot all his lines and kept having to check his script...the one who whispered so softly anyone not in the first three rows couldn't hear him...the one who kept staring at his feet and delivered his lines at the wrong moment...he was every bit as good an actor as Ian Mackellen or Liam Neeson or Christopher Lee or Patrick Stewart or Peter O'Toole...cause acting ability is ALL opinion!

I get it now!

Not.

 

Geist

SOOOOOOO sorry to have intruded on your private conversation.

I know you're having a different conversation. I have been reading it, that's why what I wrote is very relevent to it. Especially since ani, and myself and several other people here have all been saying basically the same thing. That judging an acting performance is only opinion.

The Natalie Portman example is the same ongoing one that we have been using, yourself included. Saying that's not the specific example your talking about now is weak. You mentioned her missing her mark a few posts back, and now you're still talking about missing marks. And you wonder why I would mention the example you used? So did you use the exact words, "People who liked Natalie Portman's performance in AOTC, especially the fireplace scene, are lying?" Nope, but it would be a logical extension of blending your two examples together. If you don't want people putting words in your mouth, perhaps you should afford the rest of us the same courtesy.

And yes, missing a mark or a cue is a matter of timing. BUT what IS a matter of opinion is how it affects a performance, and how different people see it as affecting the performance. Sometimes a missed cue is not nearly as big a deal to the majority as it is to people who are looking for that sort of thing. In fact, it can be argued that since we weren't on the set, we don't know what is a missed cue and what isn't. Perhaps there really is a reason the director would choose a certain take, even if it's not the same one you would have gone with. And back to the example we have all ben using, perhaps in that scene that you say the one from the trailer is different, well, I remember a few things from the trailer being different. In fact, that seems to happen with an awful lot of movies. It could be simply because the movie wasn't completely edited when the trailer was made, and in the end they simply went with a different take, because maybe a different take gave the filmmakers what they wanted.

And for the last time, I have not said anything about acting ability. I don't recall where anyone has said anything about acting ability. I have been talking about how each individual views a certain performance, and what they come away from that performance feeling or thinking. I am not talking about anyone's ability. That is what I have been saying. Judging an actor's performance in a film or a play or whatever all comes down to individual opinion. The only exception to this that I can see is the director, and by the time we see the film, his job is already done. And blaming him is pointless too, because despite the fact that you might not have liked a particular performance, obviously he saw what he wanted to see.

And if Natalie Portman thought her performance was sub-par, then she is certainly entitled to her opinion, just as the rest of us are. And I for one thought she did just fine.

And yes JW00, there can be objectivity when judging certain things. I will admit that happily. Film just doesn't happen to be one of those things.

 

.

 

Monkey, I think you have me confused with someone else here; I haven't said anything about Natalie Portman missing a mark, nor have I said anything about any scene being different from its trailer.

I said "a missed cue is always a missed cue," not anything related to her personally. I've said before that some mistakes are always mistakes; that applies to acting as well as any other field of filmmaking, and I brought up missing a cue (along with flubbing a line), in their most general sense, to illustrate that.

Does that clear things up?

 

I suppose you can claim a small moral victory, or whatever you want to call it, but I have to ask, what does all that have to do with Star Wars, seeing as you're talking in a purely general sense?

 

I remember when this thread was on topic...

I look forward to the complete and informed discussion everyone will be able to have about the title in this thread in oh, 2008 or so.

See, by then, all three trilogies will have been out and had plenty of time to be digested by the movie-going and DVD-buying public.

 

Really, the thread is actually settled. They are all going to last the test of time. I just don't see how any of these 3 sagas won't be remembered.

And the good thing is that they have really all become very distinct from each other. The PT has an ultra-personal feel, while LOTR is clearly a grand and sweeping e[ic journey while TM has just become a complete philosphical and intellectual exploration. Something for everybody.

Although Count DOoku seems have made his mind up. Did anyone see the quote where he said that neither the PT nor TM can compare to LOTR? He feels they basically are not in the same class. The funniest thing he said was that he did not understand one word of TM. lol.

 

I remember that quote too Green_Destiny_Sword. I still respect him even though he said he didn't understand a word of The Matrix (I assume he's talking about the first film?)

Unlike most people, I'm secure in what movies I love and I'm not so easily wounded whenever a public figure says something negative about a movie I happen to like.
In other words, you won't hear me cry "Media bias! Media conspiracy!"

 

>>Me -Parents who use the rating as a guide to decide what to take their kids to, they obviously feel it has meaning, therefore it is not meaningless.

Monkey- More and more parents are NOT simply looking at the rating of a film and telling Johhny he can't go see it. They may ask other people's opinion of it, but there are increasingly more times when parents do in fact know their teens are going to see R rated movies, and they just don't care because they know it isn't really that important.<<

Well even by your own admission parents are still looking at the rating and making a decision but not as often as they used to. And you only refer to teens, what about the other kids? I'm talking about all kids, and parents when taking their kids to the movies will use the R rating as a guide.

As for studios trying to get a PG-13 rating, even that is starting to die down a little in the past few years.

starting to die down a little? thats your proof that the studios don't care about an R rating? Well excuse me if I remain unconvinced! No wonder you dragged your feet so long on addressing these points, you had nothing.

Are you seriously saying that if The Hulk or ROTK was submitted to the rating board and they were given an R rating that the studio wouldn't bother cutting it back to a PG?
Of course they would.
They know its important.

Mostly because it doesn't matter, especially not when talking about a movie that is R rated for anything other than sex. That is the part of the argument you keep skipping over. I don't know why, but you do. In our warped and twisted society, sex is still apparently a much worse thing to show kids than violence, which is why, AS I HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED, at the box office movies that are rated R for sex have the rule much more strictly enforced. You have, for some reason, cintinually walked away from this part of the argument. Again, I don't know why, but all I am doing is pointing it out.

Well I'm not sure why you want me to comment on this but if you insist -
If what you say is true then this is more proof that the R rating has meaning. Don't see how this helps your argument.
Of course Reloaded may have gotten it's R rating for the sex scene, I've noticed a lot of people complain about it, no-one's complained about the violence.
But that also doesn't help your argument.
You asked.


I saw the tickets bought with my own eyes. We're not talking about kids buying tickets to Kangaroo Jack and seeing Reloaded. I am talking about kids buying tickets for Reloaded. I would think I had made that obvious by now, but apparently not.

Yeah, so what, you've only seen it once, and you saw a few kids buying tickets for it. So?

You then write a couple of paragraphs about different multiplexes you've been to but I still can't figure out what your point is. you say they're all similar, but that kids may buy tickets for a PG and see an R (as I said). so are you disagreeing with me or what?

*sigh* I'm gonna give you a word, and let's see if you know what it means, okay? HUMOR. I'll give you time to look it up.

Ohhhh....rright....you were being funny, sorry , didn't realise, okay I'll look again,
hmmm...
welll...
yeah -- it's not particularly hilarious is it..I mean I don't want to be unkind, you're rambling on about God and how he's run out of ink, yeah, maybe you just need to work on it a bit more.
Tell you what - next time you're being humorous, give us a signal at the end, then we'll know when to laugh.

Um, yeah so far all of us have provided incidents where kids have bought tickets to R rated movies. Now, I don't think we all live in the same town. In fact, I would be willing to guess we don't live anywhere near each other, yet we all had similar experiences. What does that tell you?

"all of us"?
Yes, a few people have said they've seen kids buy tickets. so what?
Other people have said the R is significant, what does that tell you?

Neither of us know how often kids buy the ti

 

Jedi Monkey, I guess, according to your way of thinking, I should say the active efforts of George Lucas and Lucasfilm LTD to thwart the unfortunate piracy of AOTC is completely meaningless. (nevermind the fact a handful of bootleg pirates were caught and arrested). Forget that there's actually paid investegators to search for these bootleggers, or the tight security and secrecy involved when the early reels of the film were being shipped. All of these efforts are meaningless, because there are people out there who still got what they wanted. I used this example because A)it deals with George Lucas, something I'd think you'd relate to more, and B)you don't seem to like my other examples.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, just because there's a "few holes in the wall" doesn't make the entire rule useless. And do you honestly think an R-Rated version of Austin Powers II: The Spy Who Shagged Me could've earned the same amount as it did when it was a PG-13 film?

 

In case anyone was interested, here is Christopher Lee's quote...

"They can't not give awards to The Return of the King," he insists, still smarting from the way the previous two films were passed over on Oscar night. "When there were no best picture or best director awards for The Fellowship, I thought it was a disgrace. The other [nominated films] were good movies but they did not even compare. You can't compare anything to these films. You cannot compare it with Star Wars or the Matrix, which I didn't understand a word of. There will never be anything like it again. I am very lucky to in this late stage of my career to have worked with Tim Burton, Peter Jackson, George Lucas. I love to work and to be able to still be working is wonderful, after all how many roles are there for 81 year olds. It has been hard work but definitely worth it."

 

Though it pains me to post this, the end of this thread is near. This thread has always operated under the proviso that it would be moved to SWC once the bulk of the various trilogies have been released - the release of Reloaded put us well over the mid-point, and therefore this topic is better suited to another forum.

This thread will remain open until Saturday, at which point it will be locked; if he wants to, Elfstar can restart it in SWC.

 

You cannot compare it with Star Wars or the Matrix, which I didn't understand a word of.

LOL

Imagine if Mr. Lee ever watched TMR

 

I think Lee would've been great as The Architect. Don't you agree?

(I'm joking btw )

(and that would place him in all three trilogies!)

 

Ah, I see...so that little kid I saw on stage the other day in the fifth grade play...the one who forgot all his lines and kept having to check his script...the one who whispered so softly anyone not in the first three rows couldn't hear him...the one who kept staring at his feet and delivered his lines at the wrong moment...he was every bit as good an actor as Ian Mackellen or Liam Neeson or Christopher Lee or Patrick Stewart or Peter O'Toole...cause acting ability is ALL opinion!

Was this kid Keanu Reeves?