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

DUCKMAN-- U call TPM "The Crappy Menace" but then assert that saying the Matrix is superior is sacrilege??

Crediblity: 0

LOL...

 

Green-Destiny-Sword

Ok, this is getting scary. We are agreeing too much. I'm beginning to have some kind of "Red King dreaming" type crisis here...are you my sock, or am I a sock of you?

Nightmare on Elm Street was fantastic, and part 3 was great in that it went off in a totally different direction (the kids empowering themsleves in their dreams...actually taking the battle to Freddy...brilliant).

I prefer part 5 (Dream Child?) to part 4 (Dream Master)...but it was all pretty good. Not sure about the 3D one though (they killed Freddy by blowing him up with dynamite????).

...my next post will be totally on topic, promise!

 

Someone earlier brought up the Alien movies (1-3) as a classic trilogy.

I disagree... I think only the first one is a classic. The 2nd one is awesome beyond words IMO, but it's more of a regular action movie, whereas the first one was truly groundbreaking. (And scary as well!) #3 and #4 both had their good points, but they don't even come close to the quality of the previous two.

On another issue, I also agree that comparing "Blade Runner" to "the Matrix" has some merits. Just because the movie looks dated, or is an obvious product of its era, does not diminish its potential as a classic. Just look at some Sci-Fi movie classics: "2001" is oh-so 60's. Still a classic. "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" is as 70's as an SF movie can get, and it is still arguably a classic. Even "Star Wars: ANH" has some definite 70's moments. And "Blade Runner" can be seen as a product of the 80's. In a few years, "The Matrix" may become very dated - in a 90's sort of way. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

Before things get too far afield and we end up discussing the merits of the Child's Play series, the scope of the thread is to discuss the three contemporaneous trilogies of LOTR, The Matrix, and the SW PT. Because of the immediate potential conflict between them (in the sense of popularity), the debate should be confined to them.

Parallels to other series can elaborate points, but should not dominate the discussion.

 

JenX-- LOL...maybe I'm your sock. I think some people would prefer that rather than relaize that there is more than one person who shares some of my views on here.

But yeah, Deam Child was good too! Great starting. I loved the whole concept for freddy's birth as the son of "1,000 maniacs". It was real twisted stuff. And yeah, part 6 was lame. I thought they tried to return to the old ways, but it got silly when it was more like a military battle. YOu know what though, did u actually see it in the theater?? Although there was no need to see Freddy in 3-D, that movie had the best 3-D effects I have ever seen! Easily. It was pretty impressive. Too bad the flick itself was not.

They have actually been talking about bringing it back again. I know Freddy v. Jason has been in the works for about 20 years, but they also want to bring back the nightmare series. We'll see.

 

Aliens was almost as influential on the action genre as Alien was on the horror genre, but I agree that the first one has the edge in terms of timeless classic.

 

Uh, Quixotic, doesn't the first post says that we can bring up other trilogies.

Another great trilogy is Romero's "Dead" series, though it does get a bit weaker by Day of the Dead.

Same can be said for "The Godfather," although I'm not as set against the third one as many critics are.

Of course the greatest trilogy of all-time is "The Naked Gun."

 

The Godfather I & II are great examples of movies that are not accessible to children but still attain the status of classic.

I suppose the question of which will stand the test of time, or which will be seen as classics, all depends on who's point of view you're talking about. Examples: Plenty of people consider the Evil Dead series to be classics, while the mainstream barely acknowledges their existence. I personally can't stand Gone With the Wind, but it's place as an all-time classic is etched in stone. Now if they remade that movie with Lawrence Fishburn's Ike Turner in the Clark Gable role, that would be classic! Ok, that was off a bit off topic...

Which Elm Street had Patricia Arquette? Was that 4 or 5?

 

You're certainly allowed to bring up other trilogies. Just please try to relate them to the topic. If you can't compare them to the Star Wars PT in some way then it's probably better not to bring them up.

 

Quote:
"Which Elm Street had Patricia Arquette? Was that 4 or 5?"


3. I had a huge crush on her when I was a kid from that movie.

 

Oh, that's right. She was the chick who's mom was drugging her to get her to sleep, right?

 

I've never seen any of those flicks, so thats why I'm not joining in.

 

All good analogies. Though I think LOTRs more adult nature, blood and guts type battles make it less accessable to kids, I guess you could say Harry Potter+LOTR=SW level success.

SW always had that perfect kid friendly/adulty friendly mix, that no other film really has.


Whats everyone opinion of the indiana jones trilogy? Has it stood the test of time, I use to think it had, but somewhere in the last few years its really got lost in the shuffle. I still love those films, but watchign them recently they are awfully dated. ANd the directing is for the most part really bad in a lot of scenes. I dunno, I'm not that impressed by spielberg so maybe thats part of it, I attribute Ford/Lucas with most of what is good about Indiana Jones. Any thoughts on the new film?

 

Drayton, that's all well and good but the fact is LOTR has already come out and it most definately didn't have anywhere near the impact or lasting cultural appeal that Star Wars did. It didn't even have the impact or lasting cultural appeal that the Harry Potter movie had. I would even go so far as to say that the LOTR movies aren't even on the radar as far as most kids and early teenagers go.

So far Lord of the Rings has probably been the most non-descript, low key blockbuster of all time. For one of the more successful movies of all time it didn't really ingrain itself beyond the internet community and Tolkein fans. I mean got nominated for a ton of Academy Awards, some of the most ever and no one really mentioned it, and no one talked about it, and no one gave it any real chance of capturing the important ones. Good movie, yes, pop culture phenomenon, no.

Harry Potter is the Star Wars of this generation, and that's basically the books. The movies are along for the ride on that one.

 

I wish GL had gotten JK Rowling to co-write the SW PT. Would have been greatly improved IMHO.

 

I believe that LOTR trilogy will do better than any of the other ones.

 

did u get your name from the hunt for red october?

 

JK Rowling is brilliant at what she does but I don't think it would translate to the SW universe, and why would she want to? She already has a huge franchise herself.
I would of liked to have seen Kevin Smith co-write the PT. He has a great understanding of the Star Wars universe. IMO

 

I remember when The Matrix came out, critics were whooping and hollering that this generation had found its Star Wars, but I think it's more like it found its Back To The Future. With it's Ray-Ban's, black trenchcoats, and hip computer-geek lingo, The Matrix will seem quaint in a few years, much like Back To The Future with its nostalgic 80's references that go over the heads of most kids.

Peter Jackson's The Lord Of The Rings has strayed far enough away from the much superior source material that it is one of those franchises that is just begging to be remade in a few years, much like David Lynch's Dune with the Sci-Fi Channel's more accurate version. And while the first film was very successful, the franchise just hasn't seemed to have captured the attention of the general public. It seems like it's one of those franchises that the critics just love but can't quite seem to convince their readers to do the same. I wouldn't be surprised if The Two Towers does Attack Of The Clones type business, meaning that it will do very well but not quite as well as its predecessor. The reaction I saw from most people (which is in no way a scientific survey) seemed that they were perturbed that the story just kind of ended, but they weren't all that terribly interested in what happens next. Even the enthusiasm on some Rings fansites seems forced, as if they're unwilling to admit that the movies are good but not great.

Star Wars, on the other hand, is a timeless classic. There is nothing "hip" or dated about it (at least conceptually) as it is one of those stories that seems to truly exist outside of our world. The characters and top-notch visual effects can entertain the young and old alike. Kids can enjoy the movies because on the surface, the story is simple enough that even they can grasp, and adults can enjoy pealing back the layers and exposing the deeper, and often times darker, undertones that simmer just beneath the surface. While we fans are currently suffering through a time of "I hate Star Wars!" bandwagon riding, it's my opinion that this franchise will be remembered for a long time to come.

 

The OT will last a long time but the PT will be something you just watch when you've watched ANH ESB & ROTJ so many times you just feel like watching something else.

 

I would of liked to have seen Kevin Smith co-write the PT. He has a great understanding of the Star Wars universe.

You who has a really terrific understanding of Star Wars? George Lucas.

 

Six years ago I would of agreed with you but there are people on these boards who have a better feeling for SW than Lucas now has.

 

I agree with Ulimates view of LOTR. I like it, but I agree with what he is saying about its place in pop culture.

 

Personally, while I like Kevin smiths films (excpet Jay & silent bob strike back sucked big time) I would hate for him to do SW. He praised AOTC, and he ruined the daredevil comics. Plus he seems like an arogant jerk to me. I dunno.


"Star Wars, on the other hand, is a timeless classic. There is nothing "hip" or dated about it (at least conceptually) as it is one of those stories that seems to truly exist outside of our world. "

Until AOTC came out durwood I would have agreed 100%, but with its sports bars, 50s diner, crouching tiger reference, and Jango Fett, AOTC seemed liek the first SW film that was trying to be hip. Pandering to bring back all those alienated by TPM. ANd thats why I don't like it. I don't agree witha ll the choices in TPM, but I respected GL for doing something different then the typical sci-fi action films, and for keeping the timelessness of the OT. I think a lot of that is lost now.

 

Rebel Scumb, can't agree with you on the Daredevil thing. I think Smith did great work on a character which had completly lost it's way.\
Would there have been a movie coming out soon if KS had not resurected Daredevil?
I think he did to DD what Frank Miller did for Batman.