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

You're in luck. John Huston directed a movie aptly titled "The Bible"

 

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 thought they explained it rather well in the film why the heroes were killing humans. You may not agree with that reason, nor am I suggesting you should, but that plot point was explained.


Maybe the Hidden Fortress is "obscure" where you're from, but to many it is an immensely popular film.

It's extremely popular in certain circles, but in America, to the average Joe on the street, they've never seen it and probably never heard of it. That's a shame though, it's one of the best movies ever made.


And you have not given ONE reason for why TPM would be any more memorable, has any heart or originality.

Well, throwing a political plot into an action adventure story was pretty original. However, I don't think that will cause TPM to be remembered, because what people remember about TPM is JJB, Darth Maul and Pod racing.


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

Exactly, I was thinking that 90 minutes into my first viewing of Matrix, but actually, I assumed their wouldn't be sequels for that very reason. I've always thought Matrix sequels was a bad idea. If you take away his godlike powers, then it weakens the plot of the first movie, but if you don't, the movie will be boring.


Which Trilogy will stand the test of time? Harry Potter.

Is that even a trilogy?

 

The SW movies have already stood the test of time. I think they will continue to.

The Matrix won't, imho, because its very 90's ish. It's big selling point is its "cool" factor. We all know that what was cool in our parent's time isn't usually cool today.

The LOTR book has already stood the test of time, but we'll have to see if the movies can too. Personally, I think they will, but not at the same level as SW.

 

It's big selling point is its "cool" factor. We all know that what was cool in our parent's time isn't usually cool today.

First...James Dean is still pretty cool. The Rolling Stones (at least stuff from our parents' time) is still pretty cool.

Second...you say what's cool in our parents' time isn't cool in our time. How will SW avoid this predicament with our children? Why won't the Matrix?

 

That's based on your own point of view.

 

SW is no longer considered "cool", but it is still successful and well-liked. That's because SW never relied on its cool factor to begin with-- coolness is not an essential part of SW. "Coolness" IS essential to The Matrix, imho. That's why SW has been able to stand the test of time, and why I personally don't think The Matrix will.

One can say the same thing about LOTR-- it doesn't have the "coolness" factor going for it. However, that doesn't matter in LOTR. Therefore, it will probably have a better chance of standing the test of time.

 

The LOTR books have already stood the test of time. The movies will stand the test of time, because they are based on the books. And pretty much only because they are based on the books--assuming TTT and ROTK are as shockingly, numbingly average as FOTR was.

Plus LOTR has the press behind it. LOTR is the first real weapon the press has had in its quest to tear down SW, and it will use it. Peter Jackson will continue to get a free ride and be considered a creative genius, which he isn't.

 

Oh please.

You really believe the press, movie critics, and most of my friends liked FotR because it gav them ammunition against SW?

PPOR

 

"The LOTR books have already stood the test of time. The movies will stand the test of time, because they are based on the books. And pretty much only because they are based on the books--assuming TTT and ROTK are as shockingly, numbingly average as FOTR was.

Plus LOTR has the press behind it. LOTR is the first real weapon the press has had in its quest to tear down SW, and it will use it. Peter Jackson will continue to get a free ride and be considered a creative genius, which he isn't. "

i'm not even sure that should be dignified with a response.

 

Plus LOTR has the press behind it. LOTR is the first real weapon the press has had in its quest to tear down SW, and it will use it. Peter Jackson will continue to get a free ride and be considered a creative genius, which he isn't.

I don't think I've read or heard of one article comparing LOTR and Star Wars (that is mostly a forum thing). LOTR came out months before the AOTC hype really began. Spiderman vs. AOTC, yeah, there were a lot of those, but I doubt LOTR was really the media's ammunition against STar Wars.

And I don't think LOTR was a perfect movie, but recently picking up the books for the first time, I am thoroughly amazed at how Peter Jackson and his colleagues fashioned a a 500-page book (not to mention an introduction to one of the most popular books ever) into a competant, beautiful, and most importantly, faithful film. There are a myriad of characters and fanciful locations in the novel, and Pete Jackson and his screenwriter(s) made some very good choices in what to keep, what to slightly modify, and what to drop for cinematic purposes. If he screwed up the intro, he would've deeply angered a large circle of fans.

And I don't think Pete Jackson is that much of a hack. To give him some credit, FOTR looks marvelous, it has sumptuous sets that are as detailed as in the book, and I applaud him for paying attention to the performances. (The performances are better than most of the PT right?)

If FOTR had a boring look, bland sets, and passive performances, than I would begin to throw some criticisms. But give credit where credit is due -- Peter Jackson said he poured his heart into this project, has a great respect for fans, and he loves cinema. I believe he's far from a talentless schmoe on the street who somehow had an Oscar-nominated movie fall onto his lap. FOTR didn't make itself....he was largely responsible for it getting made at all. As I can attest, the recent LOTR films enticed me to pick up the books, which I probably might not have otherwise. (and I'm glad I did)

 

What will make or break the Lord Of the Rings will be how "Faithfully" Peter Jackson continues to translate the story.

Peter Jackson misses several points which lesses it's impact on my viewing.

1)Aragon was a King in Exile in the books...not the wimpy "King of Advoidence"

2) Frodo actually was much braver in the book.

3)Gilmil's motivation-to find out what happened to a lost drwarven expedition to Mines of Moria was changed unnecissarily. Why not go through the mines if The Dwarves had control of it. It seem rather silly that he doesn't realize that a dwarven kingdom had been decimated for a while.


There are others...the main fact that Jackson felt like telling the story of the generals, and not of the Hobbits, which was Tolkiens POV of the series was a bit annoying.

However, if he changes the story too much...he will loose his audience.

The Matrix

Again, depending how they do the sequels. The first story was basically the Jesus story re-told with Keanu Reves and guns. Where does the story go from there? WHo knows.

 

Interesting topic, this.

The Matrix-

The Matrix most likely will not stand the test of time-It's widely known for it's special effects, and even those have become common in movies, commercials, and whatnot.

Beyond that, it also is definantly an adult tale-Unlike SW or LOTR, the Matrix isn't a movie people under the age of oh, 15 or so are most likely watching. That limits it's appeal, compared to the other two.

The SW Pt-

Will probably be remembered for, if nothing else, the Jar Jar bashing. However, I think they will be remembered along with the OT-SW is an extremely popular tale, and a rarity anymore: a modern day myth. The original SW movies have been insanely popular for the past 20 or so years since their release...I don't doubt that the PT will, one day, be seen in the same light.

I think it'll also be remembered for how it works politics into the plot-Seeing Plapatine's rise to power only makes his death in the OT that much more rewarding.

The PT have much more complicated heroes and villians, not to mention plots. I think it'll be remembered for that as well.

Lord of the Rings-

Lord of the Rings will stand the test of time as well, if only because the movies are connected to the books. LOTR is an extremely well told saga, and the acting is top notch in the movie-especially Gandalf.

Peter Jackson and co deserve a lot of credit for taking a beloved book and turning it into a respectable movie-It isn't easy to turn a book into a movie (look at how Les Mis turned out *cringe*), and the fact they did it well earns them much respect from me, and no doubt will earn them much respect in the future.

Although I do wish some things would be shown; I always wanted to see Tom Bombadil on screen and was disapointed he wasn't in FOTR.

However, I *really* can't wait to see the ents.

 

Peter Jackson and co deserve a lot of credit for taking a beloved book and turning it into a respectable movie-It isn't easy to turn a book into a movie (look at how Les Mis turned out *cringe*)

Les Mis?? Hmm...haven't seen that one.

I don't care much about whether LOTR will stand the test of time or not. As far as I'm concerned. the books already have, so it's fine by me. The movie LOTR I watch for pure entertainment (and getting a kick out of purists whining in the internet, especially nowadays after the TTT and ROTK spoilers LOL..and the gushers thought us bashers are bad ).

The PT...it's kinda like the same case as LOTR in some aspects. The OT has already stood the test of time, so I'm not surprised if that factor helps the PT.

Tha Matrix, as I've mentioned before...I like the first film for it being able to stand on its own feet without the sequels (unlike FOTR or TPM). This factor might influence whether the trilogy as a whole would be well remembered, or people might just love the first one but don't really like the rest.

*shrug* Certainly interesting to see how this thread leads after next year

 

YEah, well us "purist" see no reason to change certian things of LOTR...Like I said, The reason why it was well recieved was the how well it was done.

THe Matrix...well it can be doomed by it's sequels/ Just as the Road Warrior raised Mad Max status...Mad Max beyond the Thunderdome also brought it down a bit.(I liked it though)

The Batman Franchise was totally demolished by "Batman and Robin"

 

"Frodo actually was much braver in the book."

I loved the film, but I agree with this criticism. Making Frodo into a wimp weakened the character and the film, IMO. Having him fatally stabbed and make a miraculous recovery TWICE didn't help either.
And Elijah Wood couldn't even pronounce "Mordor" correctly!

But apart from that, it was a great film.

 

Yeah. I loved FotR. But one thing I really missed was Frodo's defiance at the Ford.

In the book, Frodo rides to the ford himself, and defies the Nazgul with the last of his strength. He is saved by the flood, created by Elrond and Gandalf.

In the movie, they had to have Arwen come along and say silly things like "If you want him, come and claim him"

Really not the highlight of the film, IMO. I loved most of the rest though.

 

Yes, Frodo shaking his fist at the Ford was the best part.

Of course, Poor Harrison was a bit confused at why a hobbit was shaking his fist defiantly at him. But then, he realized he was standing in front of an Edsel

 

Is it true that T2T is rumored to be further from "the book" than FOTR was?

 

i think saruman actually gets killed in ttt, though i'm not sure.

i actually thought it worked really well the way arwen conjured the wave like that...it gives me chills when her voice is all echo-y like that and she's speaking elvish. i dont mind that it wasnt frodo. i think it would have been not quite right for him to have the courage of a lion right from the beginning, it would be better if it develops. i do take issue with some of the things that were done differently, as i will enumerate, but i thought that was a good choice with arwen.

i dont mean to suggest any whole scenes from the book that should have been included...just the way some of the scenes were conducted.

1) when gandalf battles the balrog: in the book it says when he slams his staff down that it caused the bridge to crack, and that's how he defeated the balrog. but in the movie, it just appears as if the bridge just happens to give way when the balrog steps on it. also, in the book, the balrogs whip pulls gandalf off the bridge, but in the film it only makes him slip. why doesnt the party rescue him, and why does he let go? also, i like the account of the fellowship's confrontation with the moria orcs better...its more of a scattered confrontation, they have to battle a few orcs every little while on their flight to the bridge of kazad-dhum. in the movie, i really dont like when the fellowship gets surrounded by the hundreds of orcs, because it ends up that the balrog saves them. if not for the balrog, the fellowship would have been defeated.

2) at amon sul, when aragorn chases off the five nazgul: in the book aragorn makes a point of wondering why the nazgul do not attack again...the answer presumably was that so they could team up with the other four and ambush them at the ford. but it doesnt make much sense in the film...if aragorn can defeat five of them like that, then they arent really very strong are they? why are they so afraid of them? some small bit in the script should have brought attention to the fact that for some reason they were waiting to attack again. so that it doesnt seem so contrived that they just hang back until its time to chase arwen. even in the book i dont think aragorn actually faces all five of them at once...but doesnt really defeat them, only chases them off.

3) i think more of a point should have been made of the party's indecision of whether to go to minas tirith or to mordor. in the book, legolas and gimli both think the fllowship should go to minas tirith, in the movie its just boromir.

4) in the book, at the end, aragorn notes that gollum has been tracking the fellowship, and that because of that, their path may not be a secret. i think if the script had preserved this little bit, it would have provided a rationale for how the uruk-hai seemed to know right where the fellowship was.

 

>>>SW is no longer considered "cool", but it is still successful and well-liked. That's because SW never relied on its cool factor to begin with-- coolness is not an essential part of SW. "Coolness" IS essential to The Matrix, imho. That's why SW has been able to stand the test of time, and why I personally don't think The Matrix will.<<<

Pick up a William Gibson or Bruce Sterling novel. Then maybe you might get a clue as to what The Matrix was about. The Matrix was not about being hip or cool.

-----signature-----
"Rabid Balding Ewok, you make me sick.
If there was an enemies list, you'd be on mine."


:::*::(^^) :(^^) :::::::
::::::/::::^^:::::\ ::*::
:::::/###-^^-##I :::::
: *:.l##/(*)# (*)\\:::::
:::/##(###.00#)#I ::::
::(___/#*#(XXX)/__) ::
::/000{{{{www}}}}\:: Ewoks Will Eat You!

 

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

Star Wars...because, ultimately, the last Matrix and Lord of the Rings films are coming out in 2003...and Episode III will be the last film of the great movie trilogy/sagas to be released--in 2005

 

Rabid Balding Ewok

Hmmmm....And what IS the movie supposed to be about?

I guess Black Leather jackets,aren't cool.

Wearing shades isn't considered trying to be cool.

Using the latest "techno" music shouldn't be concider and attempt as cool.

Re-relling an old story in a differnt way isn't trying to be hip nor cool.

Oh and big guns and loud explosions aren't cool at all.

 

>>>Wearing shades isn't considered trying to be cool.<<<

As I said pick up a William Gibson or Bruce Sterling novel and you'll find the significance behind shades, especially mirror shades. Eye's are the mirror of the soul. Covering them up helped show the detachment from emotions and reflect the coldness of technology and moral decay. These books have been around for a long time. It wasn't "Hey, let's make our characters cool for cool's sake. So I can get alot of readers and make a lot of money. I know, shades! Better yet mirror shades!""

>>>Using the latest "techno" music shouldn't be consider and attempt as cool.<<<

Techno/industrial, generally electronic music has always been used in the Cyberpunk genre. What would you have preferred, for them to play Polka music?

>>>Re-relling an old story in a differnt way isn't trying to be hip nor cool.

Oh and big guns and loud explosions aren't cool at all.<<<

Are you talking about Star Wars?

-----signature-----
"Rabid Balding Ewok, you make me sick.
If there was an enemies list, you'd be on mine."


:::*::(^^) :(^^) :::::::
::::::/::::^^:::::\ ::*::
:::::/###-^^-##I :::::
: *:.l##/(*)# (*)\\:::::
:::/##(###.00#)#I ::::
::(___/#*#(XXX)/__) ::
::/000{{{{www}}}}\:: Ewoks Will Eat You!

 

The Matrix was RBE's Star Wars, I think. Star Wars was my Star Wars