The Matrix, the SW PT, and LotR: Which Trilogy will stand the test of time?

Hehe, it's funny how you LOTR gushers bend over backwards to try and find deep meaning and excuse the flaws in the film, just like the TPM gushers.

I don't know who's sadder.

Wait, yes I do. TPM gusgers.

 

"Jackson has stuck with his vision all the way.."

What about the 10 weeks of reshoots earlier this year???

 

10 weeks?

I don't know if that's a sign of an impaired vision or not. Until it's out the door and in theaters, a movie is still a work in progress. In Jackson's case, I wouldn't be surprised if New Line increased his budget for T2T in the wake of FOTR's success. Maybe that gave him an opportunity to do things he couldn't afford to do before. Or maybe holes in the film didn't become apparent until he began editing T2T. I have no idea how that works.

 

I've heard the re-shoots focus on characterizations.

 

Some full length motion pictures get shot in their entirety in less than 10 weeks.

 

I've heard the re-shoots focus on characterizations.

If that's truly the case, then good for Peter Jackson! So many movies nowadays don't have characters or any sort of development. If they do, in many cases it's discarded in favor of moving the action along...


Bummer.

 

"Elrond the grouch really bothers me."

What's with that. He's supposed to be half-elven and half-man, so why do we hear him go into a diatribe about the weakness of man? Just kinda sat funny.

 

A few points without reading 28 pages:

Alfy makes some good arguements, but I think he reminds me of this guy 'Thorin' (aptly named, btw) on a Tolkien site I go on:
Alfy HATES the new SW movies & Thorin HATES the film version of TLOR.
They're both going to pick their 'enemy' apart....

Also, Alfster, Elrond is not a jerk in the book. He is one of the top leaders on the 'good' side who helps stave off the return of the Shadow & waning of the Elves for the entire 3rd Age, not to mention leads the only outpost in Eriador able to hold off Sauron's forces in the middle of the Second Age....

In the movie, like I said, if Elrond smiled, his face would crack.

Now onto this dude (sorry missed the name)....

>>>.There is Three areas in which Star Wars Sextology out does Lord of the Rings Trillogy.

1) There are multiple layers of progression that happens through out all six movies. The characters story arcs last over the entire movie series. Technology is shown its evolutions. Political ramifications are shown.


Technology goes backwards & that makes the story hard to believe in terms of looking at it as 1 story instead of 6 seperate movies.


Lord of the rings in comparison, and by the nature of it's story- the political climate doesn't change. There are Kings and the Evil one. that's pretty much it.

Let's see.
TLOR:
A King Returns to Gondor after 1000 years.
The Shire is taken over by 'Ruffians' in the service of 'Sharkey'.
Balin attempts to re-establish a colony in Moria.
The King in Rohan & his son both die & the Kingship passes to his nephew.
Saruman becomes a traitor & sets up an evil lordship in rivalry of Mordor.
The Highest Elves pass into the West & leave their lordships in the End.

Now, SW:
The same guy is Chancellor turrned to Emperor/dictator the whole time.



2)Star Wars is an work created by a filmaker for the medium of film. Although Lucas put many layers of inspiration on it- it is an orignal work by him. Jackson is adapting a work for film. Don't get me wrong-he's doing a fine job and I've enjoyed the movie very much. But it isn't his own work, he is building on a realy strong foundation.


Agreed.


3)Palpatine- Let's face this is the greatest fictional evil lord since Moriarity. Suaran, as per Jackson, is a PowerRanger reject. He didn't take over middle earth. Palpatine, on the other hand...slide nicely into power. He corrupted the Chosen one. Satan has nothing on this guy. And its all thanks to Ian McDramin


Palpatine isn't bad - I love how he says the little oh so sincere things, like to Padme, "The thought of losing you is...unbearable." when you know he wants her dead at just the right time.

BUt come on. Palpatine's a man. An evil one, yes, but a man.

Now Sauron, he's a higher order of being, greater than anyone left in Middle Earth. The last 'incarnation' of evil in the form of a 'person' Tolkien says.
And, Sauron is just a former servant of & immitator of his master, Morgoth.

Palpatine isn't a pimple on the rear end of Morgoth.......

One swipe with Grond & Palpatine would be flying from Coruscant into hyperspace.

 

"What's with that. He's supposed to be half-elven and half-man, so why do we hear him go into a diatribe about the weekness of man?"

Maybe he rejects his human-side? Ever hear Spock on Trek say nice things about his human-half?

 

ShaneP,

Well, these were definitely not his feelings in the novel as far as I can remember.

 

Time For Middle Earth 101:

Elrond & his twin brother Elros were both 'half-Elven'.

At the end of the first age, each was given the choice of which race he wished to belong to.

Elros chose to become a man, & became first King of Numenor.

Elrond chose to become an Elf & was given the lifespan of a Elf: forever. So, in that sense, at this point, The Third Age, Elrond, while called 'Half-Elven' as a surname due to his lineage, is 100% Elf.

Any questions?

 

Isn't he a high-elf? Explain the differences in the type of elves. Please.

I could care less if the novel had it a different way. His attitude in the film created more doubt and skepticism towards the humans abilities to complete the journey.

 

Elrond is called "half-elven" because he decided to become an elf and live forever.

Interestingly, Elrond calls Arwen "half-wit" because she chose to give up living forever just to wed a human.

 

>>>>Isn't he a high-elf? Explain the differences in the type of elves. Please.

Calaquendi or Moriquendi?


And, I always wondered if the children of High Elves who didn't actually see the light of the Two Trees are High Elves themselves....

My take is no, but Tolkien's seems to be yes & that's all that counts.

Peter Jakson?
He makes no distinctions at all.
Let's face it, Arwen wouldn't have the power to face the 9.
But High Elf Glorfindel did.....

 

Lukecash "Of course, Jackson admitted that Arawen/Aragon relationship was put in for the women in the audience. George Lucas on the other hand, realized that the older fans were gonna hate Jar Jar and Anakin being a kid. He didn't care, he stuck to his vision."

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say here...can you please clarify? And didn't GL say something about the "romance" in AOTC being for the girls? Or maybe that was just from fans. Either way, it backfired IMO. Most...no make that all...the female SW fans I know personally, can't stand the romance. Though I know there are female poster on the board who thought it worked just fine.


Duckman "Hehe, it's funny how you LOTR gushers bend over backwards to try and find deep meaning and excuse the flaws in the film..."

Again, I ask for clarification. Which "flaws" are these we are supposed to be justifying? FOTR DID have some definite flaws, but I don't recall anyone here trying to justify flaws. Could you be more specific?

 

I would have LOVED to see Glofindel as described in the book at the river. Although he is glorious in my imagination already.

 

I understand that:

1. Peter Jackson had to simplify the story & things like the distiction between Elfish groups or the movie TLOR would have to be 26 hours long instead of 8-9.

2. PJ had to put in more women, so hence, Glorfindel's small part became a piece of Arwen's bigger part.


BTW, if lines like Anakin uses on Padme really worked on girls, well I wish I was 21 again.....

 

makes you wonder if those were lines lucas tried out as a young man. hmm...sounds freudian...they didnt work as a young man so from his unconscious frustrations, he creates his own world where they will work, and he is able to finally get the girl. kinda like parents who try to live their lives through their kids.

 

Obi-Gyne

Two things I need to clarify

I am just compairing the Lord of the Rings MOVIE to the Star Wars MOVIES. Tolkiens work is far superior to Lucas on that standpoint. Jacksons movie isn't.


On Technology and progression of in Star Wars

In terms of design and technology- In the Star Wars movies you can see the the thought progression the asthetics of designs as well as technology "improving"

For example, in AOTC the Confederate army vs the Republic Clone troopers- The Clone troopers equiment looked more like WWII equipment. The Confederate equipment look like they came from 1930 monster movies. You can also see the design progression of the Clonearmor to the Storm Trooper armor. The walkers that eventally developed into the AT-AT

The only time we see technology go backwards is when we are dealing with outer rim planets or "primative" cultures.

On Palpy Vs Sauron

Okay, lets not forget that Gandalf was the equivalent of an Arcangel.

Lets actually LOOK at what the villians accomplished

Sauron Tried to take over Middle Earth.
Palpatine tries to take over the Republic

Winner: Palpatine succedes in goal.

Sauron succeeds in corrupting Saurman, a Wizard(played by Christopher Lee)
Paplatine Succedes in corrupting Count Dooku(also played by Christopher Lee)

TIE: Lets face it, Christopher Lee is a good bad guy.

Palpatine tries to turns young Anakin To the Darkside.
Sauraon tries to corrupt Frodo with the Ring

Winner alpatine- cause he kept Vader for a LOT longer than Saron couldn't keep Frodo.(Plus the ring does most of the work)

Palpatine Has secret identity.
Sauron EVERYONE knows who he is.

Winner-Palpatine. The only devil I know who tap danced his way around the goodguys, and they applauded.

And as a general character-Paplatine character actually BEATS Tolkiens original vision. Come on! A big Red flaming Eye who wants to take over the world? Not very exciting. Oh sure a malvolent evil force tries to take over by force. Yawn!

Much more intresting when the people had over the poweres to evil willingly.

And more realistic. Hitler was elected.

Yesh

Do not underestimate the POWER of the darkside.

 

I am just compairing the Lord of the Rings MOVIE to the Star Wars MOVIES. Tolkiens work is far superior to Lucas on that standpoint. Jacksons movie isn't.

Both the book and the recent film of the first third of the book are better than anything Lucas has created. I love the original trilogy, but I don't find any of them to be as powerful as Peter Jackson's Fellowship. And the prequels don't even put up a fight.


In terms of design and technology- In the Star Wars movies you can see the the thought progression the asthetics of designs as well as technology "improving"

No you can't. You can see Lucas trying his hardest to futilely make it all fit together, such as having Darth Maul fly a TIE-based ship, presumably the earliest inspiration for the later TIE fighter. The problem is, no matter what design evolutionary techniques he's tried in the prequels, they've all failed, because no matter what, the prequel ships all look newer, due to the technological advances in special effects.


For example, in AOTC the Confederate army vs the Republic Clone troopers- The Clone troopers equiment looked more like WWII equipment. The Confederate equipment look like they came from 1930 monster movies.

I would dispute these comments, except that even if true, they seem rather irrelevant to the entire "design evolution" argument.


You can also see the design progression of the Clonearmor to the Storm Trooper armor.

Can you really? What would that be? A design progression is simply changing helmets at some point? I don't think so.


The walkers that eventally developed into the AT-AT

Ah, but again, this attempt to show the evolution of the design failed, because the "earlier" versions look so much better. That is the problem of making the first 3 so long after the last 3. It will appear incongrous.


The only time we see technology go backwards is when we are dealing with outer rim planets or "primative" cultures.

Again, as I've already shown, the technology all will "go backwards" when the films are watched in sequence, because the film technology will go backwards. Lucas can't win in this area....if he further tools with the OT's special effects to bring them closer to those of the PT, he'll be criticized by the fans of the OT (and rightly so), and if he leaves the OT effects alone, the series will devolve on a technical level when it's watched in proper order.....or you could just use common sense, and only watch the original trilogy.


Okay, lets not forget that Gandalf was the equivalent of an Arcangel.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but it'll suit the argument. If you wanted to get technical, this comparison wouldn't work.....in Tolkien the "angels" are the Valar, and their assistants are the Maiar. Gandalf, Saruman, and Sauron are all Maiar. So Gandalf is the equivalent of a spirit for good, or a generic holy spirit.


Sauron Tried to take over Middle Earth.
Palpatine tries to take over the Republic

Actually, this is incorrect. Sauron ruled Middle Earth, or was high in the regime that ruled Middle Earth, during various periods over 10,000 years apart. Palpatine ruled the Republic (Empire in his time) for something like 30 years. Also, it seems a grievous oversight on your part to not realize that Sauron had "taken over" Middle Earth at one point shown in the film. Why do you think it was such a big deal when they cut the Ring from his finger?


Winner: Palpatine succedes in goal.

For reasons stated above, he does not.


Sauron succeeds in corrupting Saurman, a Wizard(played by Christopher Lee)
Paplatine Succedes in corrupting Count Dooku(also played by Christopher Lee)

Actually, in both cases, the Christopher Lee character is only corrupted in part, and in both series, has turned to evil for their own devices. Gee, it's like Lucas had read LotR or something....


Palpatine tries to turns young Anakin To the Darkside.
Sauraon tries to corrupt Frodo with the Ring

This is sim

 

Too many flaws to mention in LOTR, but here's one:

We're never given any information on what exactly separates the eleves and Gandalf from regular humans. Elrond has been around for thousands of years, and he doesn't seem to have aged a day. Don't elves start off as babies like everyone else? Do they get to a certain age and then just stop growing old?
And what is Gandalf, exactly? He looks like a regular old dude but he's some kind of immortal being in human form? Are all wizards like that?
Maybe I need to read the book to understand this stuff, but I'm lazy.

 

You assume these flaws exist because you're too lazy to become knowledgable about something before you bash it. And we're off...


We're never given any information on what exactly separates the eleves and Gandalf from regular humans.

Maybe you weren't, but I and millions of other Tolkien faithful were. If you're referring to the books, the differences between Maiar (Gandalf), Elf (Elrond), and humans are well-defined. If you're referring to the films, of which we've still only seen the first, you need to wait a bit....while the difference between man and elf (immortality, wisdom, love of nature, lightness of foot and graceful agility) has been shown quite thoroughly already in the film version of LOTR, the difference between the Wizards and regular men will be shown much more clearly in The Two Towers. They're emissaries from the God of Middle-Earth, and their exact nature is more fully explored when Gandalf returns to complete his mission.


Elrond has been around for thousands of years, and he doesn't seem to have aged a day.

Yes, but as an immortal, isn't that how it would be?


Don't elves start off as babies like everyone else? Do they get to a certain age and then just stop growing old?

Tolkien addressed this in the Silmarillion, in his letters, and in several other less known publications of his sketchings of Middle Earth. Frankly, the fact that he, and now any fans who research it, DID know all about elves aging and gestation periods is enough. This wasn't necessary to explain in detail in the LOTR narrative, and isn't necessary to explain in the film version of that narrative. But I assure you, despite your assumptions, this is not a flaw in the design, and was planned out and mapped out in full by JRR Tolkien.


And what is Gandalf, exactly?

A Maiar....a spirit in assistance of God.


He looks like a regular old dude but he's some kind of immortal being in human form?

That's right! You get a star.


Are all wizards like that?

Yes, and there were 5 wizards. All but Gandalf failed in their missions, and were punished for it by denial of readmittance into the land of the Valar.


Maybe I need to read the book to understand this stuff, but I'm lazy.

If you're too lazy to go read up on the small details of Tolkien's world, then don't go and foolishly assume that what you do not know is not known by anyone. Any decent Tolkien fan knew well all of the things which were such "plot holes" to you.

Thanks.

 

"Too many flaws to mention in LOTR, but here's one..."

I agree that FOTR does have flaws...every movie does, but I was specifically asking WHICH flaws we "LOTR gushers" were defending by "finding deep meaning" to excuse them...

So, though you threw a pitch, it landed outside the ballpark.

Care to try again?

 

I am confused. Did Palpatine succeed when his apprentace chucked him down into the reactor or was it when Luke refused to join him.

If you didn't notice the Emperor fails.

 

Alfy, why are you here?

PS: PT trounces FOTR so far!