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

I think that's right. Raiders and Empire marked the effective end dates of Lucas's prime. Many of Lucas's best ideas were stolen, but in the 80s he lost his creative genius in the way he synthesized borrowed ideas. He lost his ability to discern what was worth stealing and what wasn't.

 

"I'm not that passionate about this story. I like it, it's fun and I enjoy doing it. But it's definitely not my life. I'm a bigger movie fan than I am a Star Wars fan. I like making movies." -George Lucas

Maybe he's not past his prime. Maybe he is just trying to finish this series of films so he can move on to something he will be passionate about.

 

Jabba: "Many of Lucas's best ideas were stolen"

Piccasso: "Good artists borrow. Great artists steal."

Like Tolkein stealing from Nordic and Slavic Myths huh? Or Beowulf?

Tolkien's work was more sophisticated than Lucas'. But, Tolkien was also writing literature, not shooting a film.

The basic stories have already been told. It's up to subsequent generations to keep re-interpreting them. Lucas did in film. Tolkien did in literature.

 

Actually I think the dead period for GL is roughly from Empire to Willow. If you really understand what his interests are and what his filmmaking is all about he starts to rally with Willow, starts to show his presence more. With IJ&Last Crusade his presence is a little stronger. YIJC is really the beginning of a second peak period. He's really in his stride now.

Gimme a break with "stealing". PJ steals like crazy - SW was always meant to be a pastiche.

 

"Tolkien's work was more sophisticated than Lucas'."

When Tolkien published "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" they were childrens books.

 

"He's really in his stride now."

Making the fourth, fifth, and sixth sequels to SW?!

Re-touching and re-issuing a trilogy of films?!

Radioland Murders?!

Young Indy was a rarity for Lucas: a project lauded critically that failed commercially. It was one of the lowest-rated shows on television and only made it through 2 seasons.

 

LOTR is more juvenile/young adult fiction. "The Hobbit" is a legitimate children's book.

"SW was always meant to be a pastiche."

The difference is whether the whole is greater than the sum of its borrowed parts (ANH/ESB) or merely a pastiche (TPM/AOTC).

 

"When Tolkien published "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" they were childrens books."

"Your point is...? "

You see if you take Alf for instance, he is the quintessential alien. But, no where in the Star Wars saga is he ever seen with his shirt off. Why is that? I guess George is more enamered with the hairball his feline ralphed up than completed his bowling game.

Does that clear it up for you?

 

Alfy, you seem overly impressed with yourself.

Incorrect observation.


Not uncommon among Rings fans.

Incorrect generalization.


Your sanctimonious and pious responses to IAKF are ridiculous. Give it a rest.

Make me. Pious is another word for "pure." All of my responses ring pretty true and are heartfelt. Sorry if that displeases you.


Beyond George Lucas? Today yes, but PJ's in his prime.

Point being....? I said that Fellowship of the Ring was a better work than anything Lucas has done, in his entire career. I stand by that. PJ, in his prime, is better than Lucas in his prime. How much better, we don't know, since PJ hasn't hit his stride yet. We've already seen Lucas peak (1977) and fizzle (1999). I only count directorial efforts, seeing as how we're comparing the two as directors. Otherwise, I'd also get to bring up such gems as Willow and Howard the Duck.


Take both men in their prime, PJ doesn't stand a chance. Look at the record.

What record? The record that says Lucas directed THX1138, American Graffiti, Star Wars, and then two awful prequels? The record that says Jackson directed innovative and extremely low budget gore films, but, unlike Lucas, kept improving, eventually making a masterpiece called Heavenly Creatures, a decent Hollywood ghost movie in the Frighteners, and the first of what are likely to be 3 masterpieces of epic filmmaking known as The Fellowship of the Ring? Alright, I'll look at that record.


Hell, search the old dusty archives of the Tower of Isengard.

I guess this is supposed to be.....what? Funny, perhaps? A little show of cynicism and ironic detachment at the end of your post, just throwing out a LOTR reference? Bleh to you, sir.

 

"When Tolkien published "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" they were childrens books."

tolkien himself said lotr was not for children.

george lucas, in the late 60's through the 70's was a member of that cadre of really "hip" young filmmakers, with francis ford coppola, martin scorcese, et al. peter jackson was never part of that type of crowd, he's like a geek really. he strikes me as the guy that hung out with other geeks that werent popular either.the kind of guy that played dungeons and dragons in the early 80's.

i wouldnt say lotr is better than a new hope. i do consider it a better "epic"...for whatever that means. if all 3 lotr films are of the same quality...the "lotr trilogy" will be better than original star wars trilogy...just because rotj was such a drop off in quality. i'm not sure i understand why people pit lucas vs. jackson around here. "lucas made up a WHOLE universe...jackson is using someone else's material." yeah, that's true....so what? it doesnt have any bearing on how good the movies actually are.

 

i still can't believe this absurd thread hasn't been locked yet. it reminds of that old "Little Rascals" movie where Spanky & Alfalfa have an argument about who's stronger, Aqua-Man or Flash Gordon?

 

I don't see why PJ should be "better" than Lucas at all; remember, he didn't write the movies he's making. Also, on the note of which trilogy will last longer, most definitely Lord of the Rings, because Star Wars isn't a trilogy anymore. 20-30 years from now, people won't be watching the OT, or the PT. They'll be watching Star Wars.

 

"eventually making a masterpiece called Heavenly Creatures"

Eh, minor cult hit. No more than that.

"a decent Hollywood ghost movie in the Frighteners"

Effects crap-fest. However, it does have a small-loyal following. But then again, so does Willow.

"and the first of what are likely to be 3 masterpieces of epic filmmaking known as The Fellowship of the Ring? Alright, I'll look at that record."

You do know the stories and characters(mostly) are not his right? He's standing on the shoulders of Tolkien's genius for LOTR. Without the story and characters of Tolkien....nothing.

 

"Also, I don't think AOTC did much to raise expectations for Episode 3. I get the sense that most people expect Lucas to make another mediocre film that will make an incredible amount of money no matter how nondescript, bland and forgetable it is."

Jabba, I respect you, but you DO NOT speak for the majority there. Everyone I know who saw AOTC was much more excited afterwards about Episode III, compared to TPM where most people I know weren't really interested in seeing Episode II based on the first prequel. Why can't you accept that you are in the minority who don't see AOTC as a huge step forward for the prequels?

As for Fellowship trouncing Star Wars, well I agree it definitely surpassed ROTJ and TPM (and arguably AOTC). But ANH and ESB? Hell no. Peter Jackson hasn't come close to capturing the magic of those films. IMHO.

 

"i still can't believe this absurd thread hasn't been locked yet. it reminds of that old "Little Rascals" movie where Spanky & Alfalfa have an argument about who's stronger, Aqua-Man or Flash Gordon? "

didnt you say something a few pages back like you werent gonna post here anymore?


you know, i would argue that its a harder job to adapt such a beloved story to film than it is to "create an entire universe" and put it on film. george lucas has no boundaries whatsoever (unfortunately). anything he dreams up he can slap on the screen. when you make all the rules, there's really no challenge is there? every capricious whim he has can be put in star wars because its his after all. jackson however has the challenge of honoring a beloved and profound work. he must preserve the tone and meaning. lucas can change whatever he wants whenever he wants...it pretty easy not to color outside the lines when there are no lines.

 

UL - i also said that this thread was addictive.

One could also say that it would have been easier for Jackson to come up with a 10 X's better script considering the source material instead of the bland standard Hollywood dramaction movie he's "crafted".

Also, you're wrong. It's harder to invent. Nothing PJ has inventded comes close to even the lesser GL projects.

 

My opinion, but I don't belive it makes you a good director if you can copy someone elses work, and throw it on a screen. As long as he sticks to the book, there's no doubt he'll nail the tone and meaning.

With Lucas however, he has to create a story that will be entertaing, move the main plot along, and tie in with all the little details of the OT, to satisfy the nitpickers and bashers.

I just can't fathom how it's possible to compare Lucas to Jackson; One wrote and directed three of the greatest stories of all time, the other has a track record of a couple B movie cult classics. In my opinion, it's like comparing Bach to N'Sync; one popular now, yet likely to fade from memory, while one will always be there.

 

And Darth Tarpals nails his colors to the mast!

Actually Jackson has taken so many liberties he might as well have changed a few things and called it whatever he wanted.

Let me tell you, and I will hang around long enough to eat crow if this happens, and I don't mean if it was/is filmed and cut out and put into the 6th DVD edition either, I want to see this onscreen :

IF IN ROTK THE RIDERS OF ROHAN LITERALLY 'SING AS THEY SLAY' I WILL EAT MY WORDS.

I want a full fledged battle hymn, not on the soundtrack, but with lips moving etc...if PJ does this ONE thing I'll exscuse everything else he's done to cheapen LORs. That's all I want to see - and hear - to be made happy. If one iota of the classical heroism of the books breaks through all the action movie rubbish I'll relent.

Lucas invented his own little miliue and I don't care how absurd SW gets, it's his thing and I take it on his terms. But PJ is messing with something not his own. So far he's been careless...for my money.

 

"I don't belive it makes you a good director if you can copy someone elses work"

good lord, so, since stanley kubrick "copied someone else's work" he's not as good a director as lucas. creating a story is NOT directing a movie. i see know why freddy got fingered was much more of a challenge than 2001: a space odyssey.

"it's harder to invent"

you're right. i was wrong. someone had to invent the plot for "crossroads" and "a walk to remember"...and we all know how brilliant those films were.

and if all you have to do is copy the work to get the tone right, explain to me the perfection of the bakshi lotr, cause i'm missing it.

 

"all the action movie rubbish "

and yet pj took out the action scene involving the attack of the wolves on the fellowship. strange.

 

i'd love to explain the brilliance of bakshi's unfinished LORs film but 2 flame wars at once is enough.

ps: not strange. the movie couldn't be over 3 hours (I'll give that to him, he got Newline to put a 3 hour cut out) and he obviously wanted to fit as much of his precious endless Cave Troll fight - the longest, stupidist most retarded sequence in the film - the things he might have included if THAT were cut out!

 

Let me put that a different way then. I don't believe you're a good director if the only good movie you've done is copying somoene elses work.

 

lolita, a clockwork orange, the shining, full metal jacket, barry lyndon, 2001, dr strangelove, spartacus...

all based on novels.

all directed by stanley kubrick.

what were you saying again?

 

one thing i thought was funny in bakshi, was that gimli was like 6 feet tall.

well, the flight to the bridge of khazad-dhum took up a whole chapter. what i'm saying is...the book is pretty action packed itself. the film had to be 3 hours, but if jackson was so fixated on action why didnt he just cut out more of the personal moments to add the scene with the wolves? the book has more action scenes than the movie. he filmed a lot more intimate scenes that will be included in the extended version...but i never heard of him filming the scene with the wolves.

 

Gimli is obviously between the height of the Hobbits & Legolas in Bakshi. Definately not 6 feet tall. Not even 5 feet tall!

also, to whoever brought Stanley Kubrick into this, please, for God's sake, never ever ever EVER EVER mention Stanley Kubrick in relation to Peter Jackson in ANY context ever again. Fun is fun but that's blasphemy!!!! The intellectual effort Kubrick put into his adaptations is on a higher plane than Peter Jackson could ever comprehend.