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

I am not a critic. I'm just a simple man with opinions trying to make his way around the web. Actually, I was a dual major in English/History, and do a little "amatuer" writing of my own. This in no way makes me more "qualified" to critique PUBLISHED author's works. I just have my own tastes. Everyone's taste is different.

I find Orwell, Steinbeck, Chaucer, Poe, Kafka, Ginsberg, Burroughs, Heller, Kessy, and Dante' to be great writers of beautiful prose, all with their own unique styles. I cannot imagine someone placing a book like "Return of the King" in the same category with the works of any of these artists...but whatever floats your boat.

I take my leave of you now, my friends to discuss Star Wars on this STAR WARS DISCUSSION BOARD. Have a good one!

 

i also majored in english, and am mastering in it now. i like poe as well, he's my favorite writer in fact... i dont want to say tolkien is as good a writer as poe...clearly he is not. but poe has an elevated STYLE much the same that tolkien does. (i dont mean his use of literary devices and such, just his language). not many writers now use words like hither, thither, nigh, aught, hewn, etc. because they are not common modern english. tolkien, however, uses this type of language, hence his style is above common speech. when they were making the movie, peter jackson talked about how he and the other screen writers of the movie had to adapt tolkien's language so that it would be more accessable to a general audience.
steinbeck was a writer of proletarian novels, his language is a common man's language. tolkien's in much more elevated than steinbeck. and by this also i dont mean that tolkien was a better WRITER then steinbeck, just that his language style was higher.

 

ferelwookie, relax...

Its just that you voiced a highly unusual criticism (that I have never heard before) plus the fact that you had not read/seen the particular work you were commenting on. Given either of those two points, its a given that people will press you for more details. I meant nothing personal, and you are of course welcome to have any opinion you want about LOTR.

 

Jabbadabbado wrote :"some of ESB's romantic interludes (Han and Leia in the belly of the space slug) already seem very dated because of the way late 70s gender roles/macho seduction themes slipped into the dialogue and the performances."

Incorrect,the themes of gender and seduction roles were the same then as they are now,as a matter of fact,they have always been the same and will always be the same.Even in film this remains the same.I don't see how this part is dated AT ALL.For more info see my thread "Anakin my friend,you need some tips on seduction"` thread in the AOTC forum.Han and Leia's romance rings true to this day,watch men who are successful with women and you will see this with your own eyes.

 

I think that's both right and wrong. The part of Han that appeals to Leia by being aloof, sarcastic, etc. That part is universal and timeless. Women will always be attracted to men who feign indifference.

But Han Solo isn't entirely consistent in his approach. He makes a move on Leia while they're in the space slug that I think is slightly more offensive to today's audiences than it would have been in 1980. That particular scene is very dated in my view.

What is timeless about ESB's romantic moments is the "I love you" "I know" line and the way Leia reacts to Han after he's been tortured. Also the early scenes where they're pretending hard to dislike each other.

The scene where Luke says "I care" is one of the best scenes of two men competing over a woman's affection ever put on film. It's right up there in its comic/romantic ingeniousness with the classic scene from "A Midsummer Night's Dream."

 

Ah, funny thread! Hmmm....

SW PT: I think there's a fair chance of it passing the test of time, provided the Lucasfilms marketing people continue marketing it even after Lucas has gone. I'll reserve judgement 'till Episode 3

LOTR: Hmmm...even if the movies dissapear to oblivion (hey, I like FOTR and I think I'll like the other two, but I'm a geek, and it is not written that geeks will inherit the earth! ) there's still the books, which have already stood the test of time.

Matrix: Ya know, the first movie can be a stand alone. It reminds me of ANH sometimes. Sure, things are unresolved at the end, but you could still just leave it there. Will that make the overall trilogy good, or will people just love the first movie and yawn at the other two? I dunno. Again, I'll reserve judgement 'till I've at least seen 'Matrix Reloaded' (the trailer looked cool ).

Oh, and it's such a laugh to see the 'we must bash non-SW movie' crowd operating outside the AOTC forum. *shrugs*

Just MHO

 

*shrugs*

If you like them, they will stand the "test of time." It's not a matter of quality. Some people will like the Matrix trilogy more than SW, some people will like LOTR more than SW, and SW more than Matrix, and Matrix more than LOTR, and LOTR more than Matrix, and SW more than both, and LOTR more than both, or Matrix more than both...

...it just depends on what you like. People who don't like SW doesn't think the originals have stood the test of time. It all narrows down to preference.

 

It's not just whether "you like them" that determines a film's longevity. It's whether or not, in 50 years, copies of it still exist. Some huge percentage, more than 90%, of all silent films have been lost. A higher percentage than you think of movies from the 30s, 40s and 50s have been lost to posterity. With digital storage formats changing so quickly, the survival chances of a lot of entertainment "content" may be shakier than you think. The one thing that helps ensure survival of content is ongoing demand for it.

In 75 years, film historians will be mining landfills to try to dig forgotten movies out of the discarded hard drives of long-dead Internet geeks.

 

Gee will the SW saga be around in 50 years?

I don't know, will Shakespeare's plays?

 

Even Shakespeare's plays disappeared within 20 years of his death, whether or not they were actually written by him. What we have are scholars' "best guesses" about the texts of his plays.

 

DARTH HOMER SAID: GREEN DESTINY SWORD:"So did TPM have "heart and originality"?"

Well, slightly more than The Matrix, ...Anyway, the gist of my argument was that, even though I admired The Matrix for its clever premise, amazing visuals and action, the film failed to engage me on an emotional level.


Okay, so the film had a clever premise, amazing visuals and admirable action, but you were not engaged by it??? What does it take for a film to engage you?


It's nice to discuss all the mythological themes in a film, but I think it's all for nought if I don't give a damn about any of the characters (an argument I'm sure people who dislike the prequels are more than familiar with). I couldn't relate to any of the charactes in The Matrix.

Who in the PT do you "relate" to? Anakin: the homicidal, wise-cracking stalker? Or Obi Wan, his pretentious, insensitive mentor? Everyone else in the PT is a bit player or too outrageous a chracter to mention. And for the record, I don't think you have to relate to the characters per se as much as their purpose and their theme. I relate to Neo and I totally relate to some of themes of the movie. We (as in Americans) are living in a simulated world that teaches people what to buy, think and mostly, be ignorant. And many are too caught up to even realize it. And that is just one thematic aspect I relate to.

Worse than that, I didn't even consider them the good guys. Neo and his cohorts kill bystanders indiscriminatly in their cause. And for what? So they can free everyone to live in a bleak post-apocalyptic world? I may forgive that if the sequels offer more insight, but for now I'm rooting for Agent Smith and Cypher.

Well, you're wrong. They only kill bystanders who have been taking over by the AI and are thus trying to kill them. It has not been established whether the soldiers in the lobby scene were actually coppertops or sentient programs (the sequels will explain it), but even if they were actual plugged in humans, Neo and Trin were defending themselves in their attempt to rescue Morpheus. It was a necessity. The guards see them as criminals so their instinct is to kill them anyway.

With TPM, even though the characters were somewhat underdeveloped, I liked all the heroes. You could argue that's just because of my attachment to them in the OT, but I thought Qui-Gon was a great example of a Jedi (hear that, TJ? ), and he had no previous history.

Well, here at least you're being honest. Your nostalgia caused your love for the characters.

As for the originality issue, perhaps The Matrix seemed fresher to people who don't read many sci-fi stories or haven't seen a lot of sci-fi movies. To me, the plot seemed like a mish-mash of Tron, Blade Runner, Total Recall, Dark City, Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (if you've seen the film, you'll know what I mean) and many others.

I didn't see this at all. Except for the fact that some set pieces were used in Dark City, from a plot standpoint was it really similar to any of these films?? I just don't think so. It may have the look and feel, but I don't see the plot that way at all.

Sure, Star Wars borrowed from other films too, but mostly obscure stuff like The Hidden Fortress and 1930s adventure serials.

Maybe the Hidden Fortress is "obscure" where you're from, but to many it is an immensely popular film. TPM's storyline is directly boosted from THF. And Flash Gordon was not a 1930s serial. It's movies were made decades later.

That's why I think The Matrix will be remembered as a good action film (like Die Hard, for example) but not much more.

You have basically given one reason (they kill people indriscriminately) which i don't think is true and does not make the film bad, or less memorable. I don't think most of the veiwing audience had the same moral gripes you do. And you have not given ONE reason for why TPM would be any more memorable, has any heart or originality. Oh yeah, except for your love for the OT.

The Matrix was a g

 

Well, at least you admit the PT will be watched years from now.

I like the characters in the PT, I didn't like the characters in The Matrix. That doesn't make me any more right or "wrong" than you. It's just personal taste. I don't want to turn this into a Matrix bash-fest, since I did enjoy the film, but I have to agree with this line in Roger Ebert's review of the film:

"It's kind of a letdown when a movie begins by redefining the nature of reality, and ends with a shoot-out. We want a leap of the imagination, not one of those obligatory climaxes with automatic weapons fire."

 

Roger Ebert missed the point with "The Matrix" just as badly as he missed the point of "Fight Club."

Where he's right though is that the Matrix sequels have to take away Neo's godlike powers to be interesting, so that, yeah, it's back to shootouts and upside-down kickboxing.

 

A couple of points here.

I don't know if some of you noticed, but Star Wars itself is a "sword and scorcery" tale.

LOTR and the Matrix haven't released 2/3 of their respective trilogies yet! It just might be a little premature to make a educated call on the longevity of the movies.

As far as LOTR goes, if the books are any indication, these movies will be around a long time. It is specualted that the LOTR novels have outsold the Bible in shear number of copies to be the best selling book of the 20th century.

Well, to wrap up, who do you think would win in a fight? Neo, Darth Vader, or Gandalf?

Yoink.

 

DARTH HOMER-- The only reason the PT will be watched years from now is because of nostalgia (and that was not an "admission", I never said the PT would not be watched).

But, I'll accept your response as an admission that my points above were correct.

And Like JABBA said, I am sorry you and Ebert missed the point of the film. The climax of TM is not a shoot-out. It is Neo stopping bullets in mid-air, by the realization that, he can do in fact do so and does not even need a gun (come on, Fishbourne says this in the first half of the movie, it's such obvious foreshadowing).

And JABBA-- Neo does not have godlike powers. That is just the impression the last scene leaves you with. There is much more to the virtual world than Neo knows. He will not lose his abilities though. And the matrix has obviously taken his new powers into account and created new ways to defeat him. Hence the name RELOADED.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited about the sequels. The Matrix is a minor sci fi classic in my view. But you can be sure that those "new things" The Matrix throws at Neo will include lots of shootouts.

Hopefully, much of the excitement will be people doing battle against the machines in "the real world." That's what I want to see. Show me the money!

 

Come on guys, look at these two lines:

"Free your mind."

"We need guns, lots of guns."

Surely you see the inherent contradiction between those two? Maybe the point of the lobby scene was supposed to show Neo not yet realising his true power, but they sure made it a real mastabatory gunplay fantasy

 

Well, to wrap up, who do you think would win in a fight? Neo, Darth Vader, or Gandalf?

Ah, but that depends on the location...

In the Matrix, Neo kicks both of them. But in the real world, wimpy ol Mr Anderson will easily be thrown aside by either of them.

Which leaves an epic battle between Gandalf and Vader...whoa...that'll be worth a movie!

 

I like it when heroes kill people that deserve it. Those sleeping security guards in Matrix deserved to die just like the Tusken Raiders. Yeah, even the women and children. They had it coming.

 

GROAN!!!!! Truth watch:
Lord of the Rings is NOT speculated by any reputable source to have outsold the Bible in the 20th century...which is the world's best selling book every single year. You have to remember the churches, worldwide that buy the bible in bulk.

Consider: The original "New International Version" Bible has sold more than 150 million copies worldwide since 1978. That's just one VERSION!

The Tolkien official website says this of the LOTR trilogy: More than 50 million copies of the books have been sold, and they have been translated into 25 languages.

You also have to take into account the gigantic headstart the bible had on LOTR in the 20th century. Not to mention that the big sales associated with the movie (which still are a pittance when compared to Bible sales) don't even count in an assessment of 20th Century sales _ the movie was released in 2001!!!

All in all, this statement is as false as saying cows can fly.

This is not my endorsement of TPM over LOTR. In fact, I feel that LOTR was superior to TPM in every conceivable way. But every once in a while when on the Internet I feel I must bring things back to the Planet Earth.

Glorian

 

Harry Potter.

 

Glorian,

Right you are. My mistake. A little overzealous I was.

Best selling FICTION of the 20th century. BTW, the estimate is 100 Million copies and Harry Potter is also very close. In any case, they sold a bunch of books.

The Bible has sold over 6 Billion copies worldwide, however I believe that is a total sales figure and I don't know how accurate. Second would be Mao Tse-Tung's Little Red Book.

 

They should make a movie of The Bible some day. Not just the Moses bit, but the whole thing. I wonder what the box office would be?

 

Revelations would be intense! They could pass out 3-D glasses.

Edit: It would probably warrant an R rating due to all the begetting in Genesis.

 

i would have to say LOTR. it's the only movie i've seen people clap at at the end.