Why the Double Standard?

Well i do not want to hear anymore compaints about Lucas and the PT
1) ROTK was full of CGI effects as along with special vusal effects. SO don't tell me Lucas is only in it for the Effects. LOTR full of them. There was even blue screen work done. And some of the effects were awful. Like when Sam and Frodo were runnig into Mt. Doom opening and runnig out of MT Doom. Effect looked horrible. And you can tell the part when Legolis with his hood on was speaking to Aragorn outside that he was standing in front of a blue screen. Area behind him did not look like it was there. And Gullom sometimes did not seem like he was there. Gullom at times was annoying. Wife though he was more annoying then Jar Jar.

2)There was not much acting in these movies except Gullom and Gandolf. But mostly it is just runnig and fighting. Where is the great acting everyone claims.

3) Dialouge, could not understand what they were talking about. Seems everything ended in "OR". Did not know what place they were talking about. Almost seemed Shakespearien. And I hate Shakespeare.

4) Over use of Slo mo. Though this goes with every Hollywood studio movie out there. Especially the many endings. Just seemed everyone was in mud. Moving slowly.

Now don't get me wrong. I really enjoyed LOTR. But if you are going to complain about one movie, then complain about it for all movies. Seems everything is ok for LOTR but not the PT. Double standard it is.

 

Quick nitpick: Gollum is NOT schizophrenic-schizophrenia has nothing to do with Multiple Personality Disorder and vice versa. They are two completely different disorders.

 

ekenobi
1) ROTK was full of CGI effects as along with special vusal effects. SO don't tell me Lucas is only in it for the Effects

But the prequels are often praised for their FX, it's in all the other areas that they're generally criticised. And I have seen criticism of some of LOTR's FX. So I don't see a double standard there.

Gullom at times was annoying. Wife though he was more annoying then Jar Jar.

Gollum is a fascinating character, brilliantly performed, his addiction and twisted, desperate personality personifies the evil of the Ring. JJB is juat an embarassment IMO.

2)There was not much acting in these movies except Gullom and Gandolf. But mostly it is just runnig and fighting. Where is the great acting everyone claims.

Frodo and Sam - lots of great scenes. Aragorn, Bilbo, Boromir etc. The PT's actors are regarded well as actors, but they're not given much to do, it's their relationships which are generally criticised. But there is some bad acting too: Jake Lloyd and Portman, none of the main actors in LOTR give such poor performances.

3) Dialouge, could not understand what they were talking about. Seems everything ended in "OR". Did not know what place they were talking about. Almost seemed Shakespearien. And I hate Shakespeare.

"almost seemed Shakespearian" is hardly a criticism!

Now don't get me wrong. I really enjoyed LOTR. But if you are going to complain about one movie, then complain about it for all movies. Seems everything is ok for LOTR but not the PT. Double standard it is.

? It seems as if you expect people to criticise a movie they like as much as a movie they think is poor. What I mean is: LOTR gets more praise because people like it more.
That's not a double standard.

g

 

There is no double standard. The effects themselves are not what people are criticizing. People want a reason to be interested in the characters. That's why LOTR gets more praise. It has great effects, but also gets you emotionally involved with the heroes.

 

Well I see praises of LOTR but for the same thing of the PT, it is complained about. The effects for one. PT had too much CGI, is what I always hear, but LOTR had tons of CGI. The thing is I love LOTR, I love CGI. I just want to hear complaints on both ends. If you are going to complain about one aspect of one movie, I would think it would be said of the same aspect of another.

And in my opinion Jar Jar is a fantastic character. Brought the Gungans and naboo together and is now the reason Palpatine is in power and is going to become the Emporer. He was a crusial(sp?) part of the Saga. People complain his voice is annoying. But nothing said about Gullom's which was just as annoying. Could not understand him sometimes. People actually cheered when Gullom died or the first time they thought he dies when he fell down the hole. But I think he was a fantastic character as well. I do see a double standard. LOTR is ok to have flaws but PT is not.

 

Well, all movies have flaws. It's the type of flaws and the amount of them that will make the difference between a film getting praise or scorn. Gollum has a funny voice, just as Jar Jar does, but people find his character more interesting than Jar Jar. I really think that's what it comes down to. ROTK has a ton of FX, but NOT at the expense of character development.

 

Well, the double standard is a symbol of respect. People used to hold George Lucas to a very high standard as everything he did (save for Howard the Duck) was gold. Unfortunatly he has slipped.

There is no debate, save for the real homers in this site, that any three of the LOTR movies were BETTER movies than the first two SW PT movies. But what makes them better is story, not special effects. If SW had a great story and Lucas facilitated it by good direction, dialogue and editing, then it would be no contest.

Yes, as a SW fan I judge every movie I see by my SW standard. And as an objective fan, the LOTR movies are better. Which sucks because I want the PT to be the greatest films ever made and they aren't.

the directing sucks. the acting is pathetic. and the story holds no sense of urgency or drama. All this is the opposite for LOTR.

LOTR is now the standard upon which special effects and great story are blended. The special effects don't eclipse the story, they supplement it. The special effects in SW also supplement the movie, but in the absence of a great story or at least to bring that great story to the screen, the only thing that leaves you oohing and ahhing are the fx and nothing more.

It has nothing to do with quality. The new standard is LOTR. And I was a Matrix fanatic up until the last one. I could care less whether someone flames it or not. I for one was dissappointed in the lack of story and conclusion. FX be damned.

 

I'm sorry, but I very much disagree. LOTR does not have a great story. I love the books and will read them again, and love the movies and will watch them many times in the coming years, but NOT because of the story.

LOTR is an adventure, it is mostly about a group of characters traveling, and their friendship. They encounter enemies, and defeat them. In the books, they travel for page after page. They are not plot-driven books.

I will be criticized for "oversimplifying," but the story of LOTR is about destroying a ring. Sauron, whose motivations are are barely explained, wishes the ring back to take over Middle Earth. You can get into the whole "corruption of men" thing, the temptation of the ring, and all that. But it's not story. It's character.

LOTR is very black and white. Here are your good guys, here are your bad guys. They fight, it ends.

The PT, in my view, has a better story. It is more subtle, more ambigious, more gray. No one realizes what Palpatine is doing. He is manipulating everyone without their knowledge. He's slowly but surely taking over the galaxy and the mighty (but arrogant) Jedi are clueless. Palpatine created a false enemy so he could (1) generate sympathy to become Chancellor, and (2) build a huge army to conquer the galaxy.

Compare Palpatine with Sauron and Saruman. What's their approach? Saruman breeds orcs and sends them to attack the race of Men. Saruman was not even in ROTK. If Dooku or Palpatine weren't in EP3, can you imagine? And people complained about Maul's lack of screen time, when Sauron has about five minutes of screen time in a 10-hour trilogy.

What if Palpatine simply created thousands of storm troopers and had them attack the Republic/Jedi? That's what LOTR does. I think what TPM and AOTC do are far more interesting.

The Aragorn/Arwen romance is a total joke and barely built up. I'll take Anakin/Padme over that any day. It has FAR more relevance to the story and to their character development.

There's more, but this has gone on too long already. This is not meant as a bash of LOTR. LOTR is great for its adventure, situations, its characters, its friendships. The movies have great music and incredible action scenes. I love them. But again, not because of its plot.

 

>>>>>>>>>>I will be criticized for "oversimplifying," but the story of LOTR is about destroying a ring. Sauron, whose motivations are are barely explained, wishes the ring back to take over Middle Earth. You can get into the whole "corruption of men" thing, the temptation of the ring, and all that. But it's not story. It's character. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Thank you. LOTR has terrific acting, great cinematograhpy, good directing for the most part, a good score, and great characters. It was just what people needed after 9/11. But all these things have left one of its flaws unexposed: As Roger Ebert said in his positive review of ROTK, LOTR is a silly story. And like me, Ebert beleives that the emotion in LOTR for the most part is artificial. I just cant believe people can look at LOTR and say that the story of the PT is bad. Give me a break. Please dont get me wrong, I have a new liking for LOTR, ROTK redeemed it for me. But SW is still KING by far.

 

Gollum was way better animated than anything in PM or AotC.

Yoda just looks fake, ok. There's no getting around that. Jar Jar is just F-ing annoying!

Gollum is almost impossible to distinguish from real. Ok, he's a little similar to Peter Lorre' in mannerisms and voice, but a complete and distinguished individual.

LotR uses cgi to help with the story. Lucas is using CGI AS the story.

 

I thought Jar Jar and Yoda looked much more real than Gollum. Gollum was too smooth, Jar Jar and Yoda had a bit more texture. And I thought their movements were a bit more convincing. I know Gollum is supposed to be somewhat rubbery, but I still found some of his movements to be hard to believe since he IS still a Hobbit.

 

Lucas is using CGI AS the story.

This is simply not true, and you know it.

For this to be the case, ILM would have to create the effects first, and Lucas would have to write narrative and dialogue to fit the shots.

See how ridiculous the assertion looks when held up against reality?

The truth is, you don't like the story being told or the style that Lucas is using to tell it. Exaggerated statements like the ones you've made only serve to make you look ridiculous.

And yes, there is a double-standard. Anyone who has watched the documentaries on the LOTR extended cut DVDs knows that the exact same techniques are used in both film series. Models, digital environments, cg armies, practical effects, full-size sets, digital doubles . . it's all the same.

-Otis

 

>>>I just cant believe people can look at LOTR and say that the story of the PT is bad. Give me a break.<<<

Not to open another debate, but I also can't understand how people can look at the OT and say that the story of the PT is bad.

Look at ANH. The story is very simple and straight forward. Deliver the Death Star plans to the Rebels, and rescue the Princess. Now to be sure, I think ANH is the greatest thing ever. But it wasn't because of the plot.

Movies are much more than just plot. If you want great plot you should read be reading books.

The OT has a Rebels vs. Empire straight forward conflict. The PT has more undefined conflict, which has a lot more going on, more mystery, more layers to the manipulation. Is the Republic really good? Is it worth saving with all the corruption and inefficiency that goes on? Maybe it should be overthrown and replaced by a better government.

Those who bash the PT's story are not looking at it carefully enough. They just assume it's bad because it's not what they expected it to be, or it's not enough of a rehash of the OT.

I stand by my view that AOTC has the best story of any SW movie.

 

Gollum was way better animated than anything in PM or AotC.


The PT has great animation. Gullom in some parts did not look like he was even there. Though some parts he looked great, but some he looked fake. Watching TTT for the first time since the theatre, tehre were scenes where it did not lok right at all.
I felt as if Yoda was there. I thought Dexter was there. I felt Jar Jar was there. The animation in the PT just seemd more smoother.

 

Personally, I feel the effects of ILM in Star Wars are the best there is. WETA doesn't come close, as Gollum was definately CG-looking (especially when he was with live actors). At least at some points Jar Jar actually looked like he had real skin. The only two CG creatures in LOTR that look real are the Mumaks and Shelob, but they haven't received any compliments for that.

Which furthers my opinion that people are just out to bash Star Wars often.


(I do love LOTR, though. But SW just has better effects, plain and simple.)

 

Those who bash the PT's story are not looking at it carefully enough. They just assume it's bad because it's not what they expected it to be, or it's not enough of a rehash of the OT.
I stand by my view that AOTC has the best story of any SW movie.

- Sorry, but I don't agree.
The basic story, the ideas (some of them anyway) of the PT may be good.
It's how that story is told - the execution of those ideas - that really counts. How those ideas are worked out and told - put on screen.
This is what many people, including myself, have problems with.

And the last thing I want is a rehash of the OT. There are already too many recycled OT things in the PT.

I think the story of ANH is the best.
Yes it's simple and straight forward. It's also timeless, powerful, and well told.
The basic story of AOTC is nice, but what ended up in the script and on screen is a bit of a mess imo.

 

good post, rpeugh. I agree with just about all of it.

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks this.

from Ekenobi:
1) ROTK was full of CGI effects as along with special vusal effects. SO don't tell me Lucas is only in it for the Effects. LOTR full of them.

SO TRUE. Plus, the PT uses effects to tell a story. Those lack of sweeping shots that rpeugh mentioned is proof of this. George creates these great landscape, but treats them very nonchalantly, they're just a background to the story, or they allow the story to happen. In ROTK, the ONLY STORY for about an HOUR of the movie was the effects, and I'm refering to the battle for Gondor's capital. The critics NEVER picked up on this empty use of computer technology. So from now on, ANYONE WHO SAYS THE PT IS JUST ALL EFFECTS AND NO STORY IS OFFICIALLY WRONG AND SHOULD BE IGNORED. LOL, thats just how it is.

And some of the effects [in ROTK] were awful.

AMEN!

Like when Sam and Frodo were runnig into Mt. Doom opening and runnig out of MT Doom. Effect looked horrible. And you can tell the part when Legolis with his hood on was speaking to Aragorn outside that he was standing in front of a blue screen.

whoa the hood part was the most disgusting use of bluescreen I have seen since those black outlines around the AT-AT's in the OT...and even that was rectified in the NINETIES! lol.

Gullom at times was annoying. Wife though he was more annoying then Jar Jar.

OH MY GAWD! There's point where its good that a character gets you mad, but then there's a point where you just want to leave the theatre the next time he opens his mouth. That was Gollum.

There was not much acting in these movies except Gullom and Gandolf. But mostly it is just runnig and fighting. Where is the great acting everyone claims?

THAT'S what I'd like to know! Ian McKellan, though, as always, kicked some butt....I loved his delivery of "the board is set, the pieces are moving"...when I hear that line in the commercials, I'm tricked for almost a second into thinking the movie was good.

Especially the many endings. Just seemed everyone was in mud. Moving slowly.

We can put that ending in fast forward and it will still seem like super slow mo replay.

 

you know, the first time I saw ROTK, loved it, but the second time it just isnt great at all. Once you get past the spectacle, you really start to se all the flaws. That part at the very end of the film when you see the heros fighting the orcs, and you see that being intercut with Frodo fighting Gollum over the pit of lava, when it goes in slow motion on Gandalf's face, it is just so annoying it feels like your watching an Austin Powers movie or something, because it feels so dam comedic.

 

it is just so annoying it feels like your watching an Austin Powers movie or something, because it feels so dam comedic.

That would require Austin Powers movies to be funny.

(well, the first one was all right...)



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

People want a reason to be interested in the characters. That's why LOTR gets more praise. It has great effects, but also gets you emotionally involved with the heroes.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS movies have not done as well as the STAR WARS movies in getting me emotionally involved with the heroes. To me, that's one of the biggest differences between STAR WARS and THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

There is no debate, save for the real homers in this site, that any three of the LOTR movies were BETTER movies than the first two SW PT movies.

I disagree, whether you see me as a homer or not.

If SW had a great story and Lucas facilitated it by good direction, dialogue and editing, then it would be no contest.

It isn't a contest and I disagree with your criticisms.

 

Jabba '97 looked crap.
By today's standards...anything done CGI back in 97 looks bad.

JJB is loathed not because it's CGI but because of it's character.
There has been many harsh things said, simply because Jar jar was CGI...others bashed him because of his character. I have to admit, I was impressed with the work done on Gollum...and there is a noticible improvment in the CGI even within the few years the LOTR trilogy was in production. However, I do think Gollum has the advantage that his character is supposed to be human-like in appearance, while Jar Jar is meant to be more alien then what we're used to (and hence will have that "cartoon-ish" look)

Gollum is almost impossible to distinguish from real.
Either you are holding on to an idealized opinion of LOTR...or you are in need of an eye exam? While the effects and movements of Gollum are impressive, there was a clear difference between CGI Gollum and the actor in the suit (from the opening of ROTK) that I felt was a mistake to try and slip by. Yes, they were trying to show the transition between Smegal and Gollum...but they might as well have gotten The Creature from the Black Lagoon because it just didn't match up. There are ways of doing "virtual actors" (Obi-Wan on the Kamino hanger) that could have done a better job.

there is a double-standard. Anyone who has watched the documentaries on the LOTR extended cut DVDs knows that the exact same techniques are used in both film series. Models, digital environments, cg armies, practical effects, full-size sets, digital doubles...it's all the same.
Good point, Otis_Frampton! While we as fans (many of both films) can sit here and argue over which films utilize the tools of the trade best...the fact remains that both Peter Jackson and George Lucas have made their movies the way THEY see fit. The double standard (and there is one) comes when fans place their personal opinion of the movies as undisputable fact. There has been an awful (almost painful) amount of comparisions made between SW/LOTR/even those "little" Matrix movies (sorry, my own certain point of view getting in the way ) over which is better...and the answer is simply: whatever works for you! That doesn't mean that one opinion is the ONE and ONLY way of thought...nor is it accurate in all regards.

you don't like the story being told or the style that Lucas is using to tell it.
Otis...I have never heard such an accurate defense against EVERY "basher" statement ever made!

 

The difference in quality between the PT and LOTR is not the story. It never is. The story of a film or novel is not what makes its quality, it's the EXECUTION.

Shakespeare's plays generally feature unoriginal or even clicheed stories. Romeo and Juliet's story is not any different to a soap opera or a TV movie of the week. Hamlet's story is not any better than Dirty Harry's. What makes his plays superior to other works is the execution, the quality of the dialogue, the characters, the emotions. Or look at Alien. The film's story (monster kills all members of a spaceship until only one is left who defeats it) is not any better than the story of Friday the 13th, what makes Alien a masterpiece is the direction, the visual design, the strong acting of all 7 actors, the excellent characterisation etc.

 

My question is this: can universality among critics and $500 million worldwide be 2nd best to an also-ran trilogy?

Can it be said that George Lucas is a better director than Peter Jackson?

Can it be said that either of the PT films had a better story arc - and presented it as such - than any/all three LOTR films?

If you answered yes to any or all of these questions, then that qualifies you as a homer. Which is not a bad thing. It just causes what is known as suspension of disbelief.

The story of LOTR is purely simple. An evil ring exists - they must destroy it in one place. Essentially, it is nothing more than a chase.

The PT story is certainly more complex. The dark side of the force is growing. How, the Jedi don't know. The possible savior to balance the force is being seduced by this dark force only to eventually succumb to it to the near doom of everyone. How and why he gets there is ultimatly the crux of the PT.

but the question is, is this being presented through clarity and the drama and convictions of the characters involved. Is the resolve to portray near everything in special format (FX) and not the emotions of the characters diluting the story?

Absolutely.

There is much better direction in LOTR. The actors seem like they are genuinely interested in their characters. The use of digital effects enhances the story rather than simply being inserted into the film.

There is genuine drama in the peril of the characters. Was their any point in the film where you didn't think the protagonists in the PT would pull through?

Certainly one can assume that the heroes in LOTR will emerge victorious (especially if you read the books) but at what cost. In the PT, we already know how it is going to shake down, we just don't know how it will happen.

perhaps that is the problem.

But there is no double standard. The standard is now the emergence of an adult genre of filmmaking that blends a well directed story with FX. LOTR blends this well. the PT does not and is considered, in short, juvenile.

Lucas needs to take the gloves off in EP3 if he is going to have any shot of redemption.

If anything, I'm sure critics are scratching their heads, wondering and pleading in their hearts, asking, "why can't George do this?"

 

sorry rpeugh i have much respect for you but this line made me really laugh "you know, the first time I saw ROTK," !!!! you should really change your signature then!!!


....the cloner

 

you know, the first time I saw ROTK, loved it, but the second time it just isnt great at all. Once you get past the spectacle, you really start to se all the flaws.
funny, i felt the same with AOTC ...haven't seen ROTK though and some of the posts on these boards (including yours) make me a bit worried
regarding LOTR, i enjoyed it very much at first viewing. While found many things irritating (most changes in the story, too much slow motion, sometimes caricatural acting, loathed the cave troll fight, the wizards' duel was a pain to watch (still is), and there are a lot more), i thought it's still a surprisingly good adaptation of the books and, most importantly, i felt the care about Tolkien's world and story all along the movie. It took one more viewing and the EE while i realized that most of the changes PJ made in the story are reasonable, and by now i even got used to most things i found annoying first. I don't really like PJ's style, I guess.
In comparison, when i saw TPM, it felt a SW story and i really enjoyed most of it, except when i was pulled out of the movie by something (virgin birth and midichlorians were even worse than the wizards duel, then some minor annoyances like the introduction of R2 and 3PO, and some moments of Jar-Jar). After all it worked well as a standalone movie. However, when I rewatched the OT, i felt that although there are some cool ideas in TPM, it spoils the OT too much and adds to it too less to be a good prequel to it. Subsequent viewings didn't change my opinion significantly, except that i began to find the Tatooine sequence kind of boring. So in case of TPM the main problem indeed is that i simply don't like the decisions GL made. This isn't because of my expectations about the story, but expectations about what continuity means.
AOTC is different, it was amazing at first, the visuals, the music, the locations, everything. But after the excitement was gone i found more and more flaws, and while it feels much better if i manage to forget that it's supposed to be SW, i honestly don't think it's a good movie. Visually very interesting and fun, has some touching moments, but it feels like only a few scenes/moments were carefully composed and the rest was just thrown together, especially the last ~45 mins. I won't go into details here about the script, editing and dialogue and stuff because those were already discussed a million times, but i do think it could be incredibly improved by just a little effort.
Now regarding double standard, i'm not sure if it's that common as some in this thread wish to see, i have the feeling their opinions strongly based on generalizations. However, i find it much easier to forgive the flaws in LOTR than in PT (mainly AOTC), because i find the LOTR movies beautiful and involving and made with love and respect for Tolkien's story, so I love them with all their faults. on the other hand i find the PT nice and interesting, but it didn't really touch me (except some parts), basically it was a disappointment. Plus, like many ppl here i feel most of its flaws wouldn't be there if GL cared about his story and his galaxy more. Of course it doesn't really has to do with the actual quality of the films (though i happen to think LOTR movies are better than the prequels).