PT Did other movies released in 1999-2005 affect perception of the prequels?

I'll open with the TL;DR version of my post.

I think The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings did for me what the original Star Wars trilogy did for its generation. Do you think other movies released around the time of the prequels affected how people responded to the prequels? In what way?

----------

In the interest of full disclosure, I will state that I much prefer the OT to the PT, and my post will likely reflect this.

The common narrative about Star Wars' release in 1977 is that it was a breath of fresh air. It rejuvenated both science fiction and fantasy, and by 1983, the trilogy as a whole had earned a place in history as the greatest fantasy epic put to film and one of the great science fiction stories of its era.

The prequels had a lot to live up to. I was in eighth grade when The Phantom Menace was released, which should have put me in the target demographic.

1) The Phantom Menace/The Matrix

I vividly recall when The Phantom Menace was released. I followed it online for at least one year, and I and my friends talked about it in the months leading up to its release. However, The Phantom Menace was forgotten almost as soon as it was released. Most of us agreed that it was decent--hey, it was a new Star Wars movie!--but it was really The Matrix that had captured everyone's imagination. It had a straightforward story, an easily understood protagonist, and it captured the spirit of its time well. I was starting to watch anime at the time, for example, and the prospect of a live-action anime was exciting. It also brought science fiction (on film) back to its intellectual roots in a big way without sacrificing action. Back to the Future and The Terminator were great, but The Matrix felt high-minded like classic sci-fi stories.

The Matrix, like the original Star Wars, fulfilled a need in popular entertainment, rekindled interest in a genre that had gone somewhat stale, and captured the spirit of its time. It was also a straightforward hero's journey of sorts, in stark contrast to The Phantom Menace, which didn't have a single identifiable protagonist.

2) Attack of the Clones/The Lord of the Rings

Fast-forward to the release of Episode II. Again, there was some discussion in the days leading up to its release about how cool it would be to see Anakin in his prime. However, by that point, Fellowship of the Ring had already presented itself as a solid fantasy epic.

For my part, I thought The Matrix was decent, but Lord of the Rings was a punch in the gut. I read the books in 1999, around the time The Phantom Menace was released, and was anticipating Fellowship even more than I had anticipated The Phantom Menace. But the movie was a completely different experience. By the end of the movie, I felt as though I had been plunged into another world, and it was even more visceral than the original Star Wars trilogy had been to me. By comparison, Episode II's world just didn't measure up--its CGI looked fake, characters didn't seem to have consistent motivations or arcs, and the story lacked the tension that Fellowship had (this was my perception at the time, justified or not). This brought the weaknesses of the prequel trilogy into sharp focus. Worst of all, Fellowship of the Ring's soundtrack stayed in my CD player, whereas I only occasionally found myself humming "Across the Stars." I enjoyed The Phantom Menace's soundtrack, but Howard Shore's work moved me the way The Empire Strikes Back's soundtrack had.

In my circle, few cared to even discuss Episode II, whereas Fellowship was all the rage.

By 2003, Return of the King presented a strong argument for Lord of the Rings as the modern Star Wars; a three-part fantasy epic that took itself seriously and showed audiences things they had never seen before. It took an "unfilmable" book, just as Star Wars took potentially unfilmable ideas, and made it a visual and sonic masterpiece. Most importantly, it felt real. Gollum was a believable character. The towering stone structures of Moria and Minas Tirith, the sheer violence of the Uruk-Hai and orcs, and the importance of Frodo and Sam's journey--there was a weight to all of it.

When people ask me what I expected of the prequel trilogy, Lord of the Rings is the answer. That is probably unfair, but it hit the same high notes that the original trilogy did for me, and helped me finally admit to myself that the prequels we received, regardless of their quality, fell short of what I would have liked to see.
----------

I never found myself invested in the world of the prequels, but perhaps I would have tried harder had I not been presented with these startling new visions of science fiction and fantasy. And I suspect, though I have no real proof, that, had audiences in general not been presented with these alternatives, the negative reaction to the prequels would have manifested as apathy rather than antipathy.

Any thoughts?

 

Anecdotally, I found it interesting that when LOTR hit a lot of people around me who never cared for any SF/F films were suddenly hooked on Jackson's films. Perhaps because Jackson emphasized (or some might say sledge-hammered) the emotion into scenes far more then I would say a lot of other notable SF/F directors before him did.

Personally, I appreciated the PT, LOTR and the Matrix trilogy. Definitely my favorite era as a theater goer, and one that won't be topped given that my tastes have changed to the point where I don't hold big action genre films in the same highest of high regards as I once did. If anything truly changed the way I view Star Wars (OT included), it would be certain films that are entirely unrelated to SF action/adventure.

 

Oh, indeed -- those movies take themselves very, very seriously.

And that, for me, is part of the problem, right there.

I've never been enamoured of the LOTR movies. I generally just view them as kitschy, overblown crusader porn.

I think part of the reason they netted so many Oscars, and met with so much critical acclaim, was because of New Line Cinema's aggressive marketing.

That and, as ezekiel22x averred, they have a sledge-hammer approach to emotion and theatrics. Very little tact, very little subtlety.

Give me the rich yet restrained emotional beats, and the beautifully colourful tapestry, of Star Wars, over the grim, arrogant, and horribly two-dimensional posturing of LOTR, any day. That might just be me, though.

I'm sympathetic to your perspective, but I think the prequels are far more visually and sonically spectacular. The LOTR movies tend, in contrast, to be loud, shrieking, and just generally overdone, IMO. I've never quite been able to view them as especially visually thrilling, or with the greatest sound design in the world, either. Lucas, Williams, and Burtt give wonderful texture to an entire galaxy -- colours and sounds are endlessly varied. Everything in LOTR tends to be clang-y or slamm-y in nature. My take.

The thematic or story "weight" you allude to is there if you want it to be. It certainly feels like there is something at stake, but it's mostly the integrity of my bladder. Seriously, though, I think Frodo is a slightly tepid character to begin with (at least in Jackson's telling), and Sam is rather execrable in his constant condemnation of Gollum and his tacky evangelizing. And their "quest" is signalled so far in advance that their being on it feels interminable -- and the conclusion massively foregone. I never quite buy the "so dark is the heart of man" motif that LOTR tries to explore through Frodo and his possessiveness over the Ring, while Luke confronting his own limitations in the Dagobah cave, and Anakin struggling to balance Jedi ideals with base longings, are powerfully symbolic character journeys and have a rawness I believe in.

What I think the LOTR movies try and do, somewhat in contrast to the Star Wars movies, is to drown out the struggles of Sam, Frodo, and Gollum with the concerns of all the other characters, who obviously don't accompany them all the way. Maybe "drown out" isn't quite the term, but it feels like there is a slightly desperate need to embellish and aggrandize their mission, as it were, with all these other character quests happening on the side. I enjoy the fact that the Star Wars movies are generally more focused, with TPM (to some extent) proving the reasonable exception. In Star Wars, there is a forward-moving, complicated "every-day-ness" to everything up on the screen, from battle scenes to podracing, courtship to haggling, without one particular strand getting in the way for too long and outstaying its welcome. It gives the series an integrated, symphonic quality -- and makes it more human somehow.

The locations in LOTR are decent, but some of their importance is undercut, too, such as in the way Minas Tirith and Mordor are positioned so close to one another (more like a cartoon than authentic geography), and for the way Minas Tirith crumbles in dramatic chunks just because a few rocks are tossed at it. The soldiers it has guarding it are pretty wimpy, too -- Gandalf has to urge them to keep fighting, and instead of dumping boiling oil or water on the orcs, they just send a rather feeble barrage of arrows their way. At least when Lucas gave us Ewoks felling stormtroopers, he had the decency to play it comedically, and to offset land-based shenanigans with a rousing space battle.

And as repellent as the bad guys in LOTR may be, they're treated pretty appallingly by the so-called heroes (the ones, that is, who should really know better). Gandalf crushing them under horse's hooves in the middle chapter, set to ecstatic, triumphal music, and portrayed in slow-motion, is the spiritual opposite of Yoda bringing the clones to Geonosis, thereby dooming the entire Jedi Order (the "victory" being transitory and illusory -- something Yoda shows awareness of and laments at the close of the movie). It's here where the LOTR features, for me, expose themselves as a rather shallow glorification of war and violence. Contrast Gandalf's, "You must fight", with Yoda's, "Wars not make one great". Every action the characters take in the prequel trilogy is bathed in a tragic afterglow. LOTR is a conservative "Hero's Journey"; techno-agrarian propaganda.

That's fine. I obviously feel much the reverse.

Yeah, so...

It is the prequel trilogy's fault for its perceived mediocrity?

Maybe some people just like their blockbuster art to be imbued with a certain complexity.

Sorry for crashing your thread with an anti-LOTR screed. I find it amusing when the two are compared, and LOTR is asserted to be superior, that's all.


And to answer your question (which I think I kinda have), yes -- they probably altered perception. Probably made audiences dumber.

Sorry, that was harsh. It's kinda how I feel. Though I agree that "The Matrix" was sort of the "Star Wars" of the turn of the century. But I still rate it less than I do TPM. It's full of classic iconography, and it's an amazingly taut, superbly-edited picture, but TPM offers more charm, more innocence, and ultimately, more depth, in my view. As a delightful tone poem shading the rest of a highly-expressive, highly-visionary series, it involves me substantially more. And as sagas goes, Star Wars remains the one to beat, IMO -- indeed, in its own way, I think the saga is unbeatable.

 

I'll try to address major points made by you and ezekiel22x without quoting. I did try not to craft a "LotR vs. Star Wars" thread, so I'm trying to make sure I don't send it careening in that direction.

On the perceived lack of subtlety--part of the reason Lord of the Rings resonated with me more was because, in spite of the source material, script, staging, etc., which all suggest overblown theatricality, I found a subtlety in the actors' performances that made them feel real and human. One example is Legolas' reaction to Gandalf's death. It's not just sadness, it's utter confusion, and it's an entirely visual performance. It tells us something about his character--he's simply not able to process what happened just yet--and helps us understand where he's coming from. Eowyn was one of the better characters from the book, and I also found Miranda Otto's performance surprisingly low-key in a way that stood out.

I really didn't know what to make of the characters in the prequels. Either they were overacting (Anakin) or the performances were so low-key that they seemed to me more robotic than human. I don't believe we're just missing a Han Solo in the prequels--we're even missing a Luke Skywalker, a character who represents the viewer.

There's a lot of sledgehammering in LotR, but the prequels contained far more from my perspective. One thing I noticed from the first time I watched The Phantom Menace was that battle scenes were brimming with activity when it hardly seemed necessary. I felt that, as with the character arcs, I had little to hold on to in this universe. This stands in stark contrast to, say, the skirmishes in Moria and Amon Hen, and the battle of Helm's Deep (Return of the King's large-scale battles are much more chaotic and do have problems). Once again referring to the OT, the payoff of some of LotR's action scenes reminded me of the trench run in Star Wars. There was an emotional core to it all, and important beats in character development. There were few times the action felt unnecessary or tiresome and it was easy to follow. The worst offender of the PT for me was pretty much everything on Geonosis. There was little tension, because the action was so difficult to follow that if something bad happened to the protagonists, it would seem arbitrary.

And when story themes in the prequels are spelled out, it's patronizing (see Anakin and Padme's discussion of politics on Naboo). There is a middle ground between underexplaining and overexplaining, but the prequels hit both extremes without ever settling in the middle.

This is a symptom of the biggest problem I had with the prequels--the lack of an emotional connection. There was a lot of action, but little to draw the viewer in. And while I can't comment on your experience, I suspect that many other people feel this way.

The Matrix and Lord of the Rings, both as straightforward hero's journey stories and as action movies, contextualized everything in a way that connected with me and the people I knew. Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi didn't let the heroes leave an action setpiece without some kind of development taking place, and the development was easily understood and well-contextualized. This gave everything occurring on-screen an added resonance.

Anakin accidentally blowing up the droid ship did nothing for me. Even the duel of the fates made little sense to me when I first saw it, in spite of the insistence that it was "cool." And since the well-choreographed fight scenes in The Matrix had this weight and newness to them, they certainly made the Duel of the Fates even less compelling from my perspective.

The Matrix sequels, I think, suffer from the same "problem" the prequels did--with Neo as an all-powerful superhero, the stories meandered, and if there were good, deep ideas being conveyed, they failed to connect with me much. Similarly, I believe Lucas had a lot to say when he made the prequels, but the way he framed his points and developed his characters was perhaps so unconventional that some (most?) members of the audience didn't understand it.

And when your target audience is seeing movies that accomplish all of that, that's a huge issue.

Two of my favorite movies are Alien and Blade Runner. There is great beauty in subtlety, and those films are an example. I'm also the type of person who prefers a taut, well-constructed narrative to a sweeping one, so I'll take the more subtle Terminator to the less subtle Terminator 2, the latter of which has to spell out all of its themes in typical Cameron fashion. In this sense, I'm likewise sympathetic to your perspective.

What is ironic is that Lord of the Rings struck me as comparably subtle when weighed against the prequels. Again, this is most apparent in the action scenes, but I think another problem is that I feel we're told, not shown, that certain characters are friendly. I buy the friendship between Frodo and Sam, but I see little to justify the supposed friendship between Anakin and Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan seems reluctant to train Anakin at first, and by Episode II, Anakin's constant complaining makes me think he hates Obi-Wan. But then we'll get a scene of them laughing together to spell out that they're friendly.

I want to make it clear I'm not saying my perspective is the only valid one here, but one of the things I wanted to see in the prequels was the forging of these important relationships. How did Obi-Wan relate to Yoda, who did, after all, "instruct" him? How did Anakin, a "good friend," relate to his master? Lord of the Rings sold its central relationships not only through words, but through deeds; I saw few deeds in the Star Wars prequels to justify most of the relationships.

When I spoke of "weight" in terms of special effects, I mostly just meant that Lord of the Rings boasted realism, grit, and grime, whereas two of three movies going under the name Star Wars, a series popular for its "used future" setting, looked almost entirely artificial. The Phantom Menace gets a pass because though it's visually lighter than the original trilogy, it still looks far less like a cartoon than Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith do. I was actually floored when I found out how many practical sets and models were used in both of those films, because they look wholly fake to me.

This is more of a political point. I suppose if you're not sympathetic to Tolkien's perspective (because the movies do fairly faithfully adapt that perspective), you could have a problem with this. I don't have a problem with it, but it's neither here nor there.

It may be, it may not be. I'm not so interested in ascribing fault, although I think the best the prequels could ever have gotten from me was apathy.

I like different kinds of narratives and art. The previously-mentioned Blade Runner is, I think, a far better example of complex blockbuster art than the Star Wars prequels, though I'm hard-pressed to think of many thought-provoking blockbusters at all. Would Paul Thomas Anderson films count as blockbusters? Generally, I'll turn to non-blockbusters like Primer if I'm looking for something subtle or thought-provoking, though I do ask that the blockbusters I watch treat me with a modicum of respect.

No, I wanted the perspective of prequel fans or I would not have posted here.

For what it's worth, I believe your criticisms of LotR--criticisms some were voicing even around the time of the movies' releases--must be legitimate. Jackson showed progressively less restraint over the course of the films, and The Hobbit trilogy exposes all of these very weaknesses. But that may be for another thread.

I'll reiterate that I think they simply brought into sharp focus the weaknesses in both storytelling and presentation of the PT.

The trouble is, for all I hear of the prequels' depth, it may be so subtle and buried that it's almost entirely absent from the films themselves. I wouldn't mind a subversive, thought-provoking Star Wars picture, but I have difficulty finding it in the prequels.

 

Yes, I understand. I'll try and be brief.

You're suggesting that Orlando Bloom, of all people, conveys depths of emotion? Sorry, I simply don't agree with your assessment there; though I feel you did well to articulate your point.

Miranda Otto, I quite like in the role of Eowyn. She's not amazing or anything, in my mind, but she's decent. I find little she does in either of the films she's in to be "low-key", since she basically plays Eowyn like a nervous shrew, IMO, but okay -- you have your opinion and I have mine.

What I think characters in LOTR are very good at doing is looking perturbed or aghast. That, in and of itself, isn't very compelling to me. I need something more. It seems to be a crutch which the director relies on for eliciting emotion -- over and over again.

Personally, I find a lot of shading in the performances in all six Star Wars movies. Even down to subtle eye movements, a little shifting in weight, or a pregnant pause between one line of dialogue and the next.

I don't see over-acting in Anakin. A little bit of over-expression, perhaps, on Mustafar, but nowhere else. The rest is quite low-key, and human more than robotic, in my opinion. There's a longing in Hayden Christensen's eyes that's quite magnetic in AOTC, for example. Like when Anakin and Obi-Wan are discussing Anakin's nightmares at the start, while they ominously wait for signs of a second assassination attempt against Padme. But it all depends on a viewer's sensibilities, I suppose.

Different characters represent the viewer in different ways. Qui-Gon is an audience guide in TPM; and to a lesser extent, Jar Jar (his sense of disorientation and being swept up in something bigger than himself). In AOTC, Obi-Wan plays a pretty good "everyman" Jedi, while Anakin is flawed humanity in bottled form. In ROTS, the viewer might be aptly represented once more by Obi-Wan, who has to remain firm as the world becomes drastically hostile to his existence, and who then has to tragically confront a source of that hostility. Not to sound like a male chauvinist, though -- Padme is a pretty complex character, who serves as a sort of guide or representative, too.

Beyond that, I think this need for "representative" characters is a bit childish, personally. Star Wars is quite panoramic. Different characters represent different aspects of a viewer's psyche. I like how we're not really encouraged to put too much faith in any one character. They're all uniquely flawed.

Okay, but things are at stake in the prequel trilogy's numerous action sequences. It's just that the consequences are much like the sequences themselves -- depicted in a variety of hues.

I'll agree, in part, however, that Geonosis is very action-heavy, and that the basic "threat-level" seems lowered. Though I see this as being done in a way that reflects that film's larger themes. For instance, the droid factory sequence poetically portrays Anakin as contending against forces he doesn't fully understand, and his reliance on violence is shown to be futile. It's a revelatory action sequence -- in part because characters don't learn important lessons. And intensity does enter the picture -- like when Padme falls out of the gunship. Anakin reacts pretty badly to it and we're not sure how everything is going to play out (a microcosm of the PT itself). But the high-stakes quality is a little less than elsewhere because a morbid symbolism takes priority in AOTC. It's a movie about transition rather than resolution. The characters are moving toward galactic catastrophe; with different levels of awareness.

I'm really glad there is nothing as crudely triumphal in AOTC, personally, as there is in TTT and its closing battle. The films, in some sense, are playing by markedly different rules. You can't judge them by the same criteria. Moreover, even in TESB, the characters only just muddle through. Note that TESB places the big land battle at the start of the movie, to get it out of the way. And while AOTC does place its battle at the end, it honours TESB's uncertainty by depicting it in less-than-salutary terms. It is a battle and a war mired in the Dark Side. I find it compelling and interesting. The prequel trilogy, in my opinion, is simply much more subversive than LOTR.

I don't see that example as patronizing. They're having a discussion and showing more of themselves than they might have expected before they began talking. We see the shakiness of both their world-views. Neither can quite substantiate why they hold the views they do. It's a rather humanizing scene, IMO.

I see tons of detail that draws me into the world and the the emotional struggles of the main characters. I am able to conceive of their hopes and dreams; and many of their fears. I watch them drawing breath, anxiously flicking with grass, sighing, pausing, frowning, questioning themselves, and surging ahead. The temperaments of all the characters are well-established in the movies, in my view, and I believe in them.

Well, again...

Anakin blowing up the ship, relatively "by accident", makes sense, given who he is and what he is prophecized to become. Also, he does show some moxie in choosing to attack with those torpedoes -- it would blatantly alert the whole ship to his presence, for one, and given how explosive the reaction is, it nearly claims his life. Although he remarks, "Oops!", Anakin can't be completely unwise to these possibilities, having grown up on the rather torrid world of Tatooine and competed in various high-speed podraces. That and he clearly fears explosions somewhat, by making light of it with his comment at the dinner table, "And they blow you up -- boom!" And he even got into that whole situation (the space battle) by choosing to intervene and protect Padme and her entourage, who were pinned down by deadly robots in the hangar bay. It might have done nothing for you, but that whole sequence leaves it mark, for me.

Duel Of The Fates is a sequence I enjoy, as well. I really love the laser gate sequence. That and the ensuing passages with Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan separately engaging Maul are rather intense, IMO. I also feel that something is hanging in the balance because of the epic staging and the extraordinary music. It's kind of abstract, but really, it's the fate of Anakin and the whole galaxy.

"The Matrix" is more like an anime. There is a deft urgency to the action scenes, but they don't outclass the action sequences in the Star Wars films, in my view.

All the Star Wars films are plenty resonant -- to me.

We do see how those relationships are forged. It's just that the prequels deliberately sound off-notes.

For instance, the historic meeting between Anakin and Obi-Wan is hugely understated. The characters barely acknowledge one another. A big thing later grows out of that.

Anakin and Obi-Wan have become close by the time of AOTC, but that closeness is marred by Anakin's insecurities, and Obi-Wan's overly-didactic handling of his wayward padawan. They clash, yet they also care for each other. One is conservative, the other more eager and reactionary. They come at things from different angles; but they manage to put up with each other and show heartfelt concern -- mostly. I think that their relationship is handled with a good measure of sensitivity and intelligence.

The thing with LOTR is that the main characters don't really dislike or disagree with each other in any appreciable way. Any disputes and tensions are the result of cookie-cutter racism or irascibility in one character or the other. I think the prequels are much more objective in their depiction of the subtle frictions that exist between people who might otherwise share an interesting bond. Subtle animisms and misunderstandings keep them whole yet separate.

Oh, well. I think the prequel trilogy's effects work is generally a lot more convincing. The sort of "fake" you're talking about doesn't really bother me. I tend, at times, to look upon the prequel movies as beautiful paintings.

The point I raised back there also goes to one of aesthetics, not mere politics. I'm simultaneously asked to believe too much and not enough with the LOTR movies. I don't buy half of what happens -- it's all a bit too rancid in its triumphal simplicity for my sake.

There aren't that many. That's why I think the prequels really stand out.

There have barely been any criticisms of Jackson's LOTR movies that I have seen. Certainly next to nothing when stacked against the endless complaining and detraction directed at the prequel trilogy.

Not hugely interested in "The Hobbit" movies. If people are more critical of those, it might be for entirely different reasons. Most people aren't watching the films and formulating the same negative opinions that I have.

For other people, possibly.

For me, they have only helped emphasize what I love about the prequels all the more.

Lucas paints a thousand details into each frame. They're very subtle films in their own way.

There is an ambivalent quality to the world which is totally unlike the worlds portrayed in other tentpole movies.

Consider Palpatine's dialogue. Or Coruscant ironically portrayed as a place of safety -- the ultimate capital of the Empire.

It's a vast poem. There is a poignant grandeur to the PT. I find it very clever and immensely beguiling.

Each film aims at something different, whilst conforming to a greater whole. In micro and macro, I enjoy the choices made.

To each, their own.

 

I chose that scene for that very reason, actually. Orlando Bloom is hardly a great actor, but I think there's a nice bit of subtle direction in that scene.

The performances in The Empire Strikes Back are spectacular, and they help elevate that film. I think the actors do their job in the other two OT movies. Luke's arc in Jedi is great partly because he's able to sell it.

I don't pick up anything from actors' performances in the prequels, though I wouldn't say any of them do an awful job, given the material.

I've started some extensive refutations here, but I realized they weren't going anywhere and I have limited time. I see where you're coming from, and I'm really going to look for this the next time I watch the prequels. I'll simply say that both Christensen and Portman's performances in particular are cringeworthy, at least to me. I've fallen in love, and I've also been an angry teenager, but nothing they conveyed seemed to represent real human emotion.

I've either missed something or there isn't an objective measure here. Not sure.

If I am not given a representative character, I would at least like one character I can understand. Consider The Godfather; few relate to Michael Corleone, but his arc is something we can understand. Like Lucifer in Paradise Lost, he commands our attention because that arc is so riveting, well-acted, and well-directed.

I imagine that a story about Darth Vader might not have a relatable character. But character motivations are so hidden in the prequels that, when expressed, they come off to me as robotic.

It may be subversive, but that says nothing about its relative quality.

In any case, all of this big-budget fighting strikes me as meaningless if I can't even tell what's going on. I love The Empire Strikes Back as a whole, and the Battle of Hoth in particular, but I don't think AotC captures that atmosphere at all.

If I haven't made it clear, none of my criticisms of the prequels apply to the OT. I love the OT, and, when the prequels were released, simply expected to emotionally connect with them, which I don't think was too tall of an order.

I wish I could. Trust me, I want to like these movies. And I'll leave my posts on characters and action at that--while you've said a good amount in your reply, I'm not sure I can add much to what I previously said, but your opinion is duly noted.

I found it so jarring in part because the OT looked so realistic and tangible. It's completely at odds with the aesthetic I'd come to associate with the SW universe. That aesthetic was a huge part of the charm for me.

I don't really see what's wrong with triumphal simplicity, so again, I'm not sure we'll come close to agreeing here.

I still have trouble seeing the special intelligence and subtlety here. I'd pin the OT as far more intelligent as it weaves a tighter, more effective narrative. I understand that people want the PT to be a deep masterpiece, but I don't think Lucas even approaches Herbert, Bradbury, or Asimov as a thought-provoking storyteller. Again, if he does, it's buried.

Bradbury never had to hide behind layers of obfuscation to tell a thought-provoking story.

Negative opinions of Jackson's films in general have been showing up at least since King Kong was released.

Fellowship of the Ring was always met with wide acclaim. It's also my favorite of the LotR movies.

As a fan of the LotR books, I always had a problem with his additions in The Two Towers, his betrayal of Faramir's character (talk about hitting the audience over the head--the ring is seductive, we get it, and he didn't need to turn Faramir into a Boromir part II to make that clear), and it many ways, the lack of respect he showed towards some of Tolkien's plot points. I've found plenty of people who are sympathetic with this view. Keep in mind, Jackson's changes to the story shouldn't just upset purists. They really are an example of treating the audience like idiots, of shedding potential subtlety in the story, all of the criticisms you've mentioned.

Also, in a recent interview, Viggo Mortensen specifically criticized the post-FotR films for not being "subtle." He was speaking specifically to special effects, but I believe it is a symptom of a larger problem in Jackson's directing style.

The Hobbit movies leave almost nothing about Middle-Earth to the imagination, explaining in painstaking detail every plot point that led to the events of LotR. This has led many to level the same criticisms against them that you level against Lord of the Rings.

Trust me, you're not alone, though I'd argue that LotR's weaknesses don't have too much of a negative effect on the overall quality of those films.

As I've said before, I really wish I could see the prequels this way. I've wanted more Star Wars films to love ever since TPM was released. Hopefully, the ST will recapture some of the magic I'd come to expect from the series.

 

Just a few brief points of follow-up...

Fair enough. But I see the non-matching aesthetics of the trilogies as part of the appeal. They're designed to beat against one another, not be exactly alike. It's showing something in different registers; different points-of-view. The PT has a heightened, mythic-consciousness about it.

I object to triumphal simplicity in the guise of bellicose war rhetoric, effusive portrayals of death and killing, and protracted emphasis on the "glory" of sacrifice and dying in battle. Consider the passing of Theoden, for example, or what Gandalf tells Pippin to mollify his fears before the main gate of Minas Tirith is stormed. The films are drenched in a kind of blood-soaked rhetoric -- verbal, visual, aural -- that I find quite distasteful.

Now, that's a strawman. I never said Lucas engaged in obfuscation. The Star Wars movies are full of visual paradox. Every situation is in subtle conflict with a mirror of some sort. It's an extremely radical way to convey meaning.

Less Bradbury, more Kubrick.

Must have missed 'em. Even then, that proves they took their time to appear -- two years after the last of the LOTR movies was released.

People were all over those films on release. Negativity was extremely scarce to the point of everyone seeming to be engaged in a collective orgasm at the time.

The PT never received such adulation. I'm kind of glad, mind you, because such things, frankly, are a little bizarre.

I hope it pleases people. It is already doing its bit to keep Star Wars in the spotlight.

 

I'd say that everything affects everything to some extent.
Many prequel detractors likely felt that the TLOTR movies showed us what the new Star Wars movies should've been like; highly emotional, very serious, grim, more adult/teen oriented.
Possibly, the thought wouldn't have occurred to some of them if those movies hadn't been made.

Personally, I believe it was inevitable that many fans would expect Star Wars to have grown up with them (in the same way that they'd grown up).

 

I think the Matrix was pretty influential for the action genre - more so than for sci-fi. It's been copied so much that the action sequences seem cliché to the modern eye. It's a movie you really have to keep the context of the time it was made in mind to appreciate. LOTR is a bit more difficult for me to judge because I have never been able to sit through a full viewing of any of them. As big as the LOTR and the PT were at the box office, I didn't really know many ppl who were big fans of both. Casual fans of both, yes, but anybody who was really into one was generally disinterested of the other - at least in my life at the time. They never seemed to be in competition with each other.

The OT - or more specifically, A New Hope, was far more unique at the time it was released than LOTR or Matrix, if for no other reason than blockbuster sci-fi was unheard of in 1977.

If anything it would seem to me that Harry Potter was the saga for kids of that generation.

It is bizarre, I had that same feeling about the hype surrounding Guardians of the Galaxy which turned out to be mediocre and not overly interesting to me.

 

Quality of the film aside, this simply wasn't the case at all. It is certainly true that, by 1999 and the immediate years that followed, Star Wars was no longer the sole, titan world-builder of science fiction/fantasy amidst the mainstream cinematic landscape. There were now other big kids on the block, so to speak: Matrix, LOTR, X-Men, Spider Man, Harry Potter... But Episode I forgotten? No. At the very least, it trended hard as a kind of black sheep oddity of the aforesaid bunch, and further in how it altered the identity of its own franchise—some liked it, others (allegedly more) hated it, while many simply didn't know what to make of a 4th entry that ultimately proved so strange and unexpected. It therefore remained an often heatedly debated point of reference all the same and, in any event, ranked in far more than any of its contemporaries (over $1 billion worldwide) while the theatrical releases of its two sequels continued the camping-out line phenomenon; something that remains exclusive to Star Wars.

So, no, I would no constitute such as being forgotten. Deemed uncool perhaps, but not forgotten.

 

The Matrix and LOTR were far superior to TPM, in every aspect. IMO.

 

To me the prequals were supposed to be the EPIC story of Anakin skywalker(DARTH VADER) the rise of what was supposed to be one of the greatest Jedi knights fall to the darkside just that plot alone sounds like a masterpiece. But the TPM left everybody very underwhelmed it basically told me this trilogy isn't as much about anakin as you would think. It gets clouded with terrible dialogue and no chemistry between actors. I enjoy the PT it's still SW but in all honesty a let down.

LOTR was a great story with amazing visuals,dialogue and drama. All the EPICness the PT should've had LOTR took and kept from fellowship to return. Put it like this who's a better character Frodo or anakin? Galdolf or PT yoda? Aragon or PT OWK? Legolas or mace? Characters were lacking in the PT

The matrix was just amazing a total breath of fresh air out of nowhere.

 

To be honest I was a little kid back then and talk about a obsessed star wars fan. I do remember stuff like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Spider Man back then, but I was pretty focused on getting that Lego star wars set for my birthday at the time so I don't remember much about them other sci-fi/fantasy films.

 

Anakin

Can't speak about Galdolf but PT Yoda > Gandalf

PT Obi W. Kenobi

I might think about that one, maybe

Anyway, other films certainly had an effect on people's perception of the prequels, sure, even if only for the "rivalry" among fans. Although I was only a faint observer, I remember many heated discussions and many comparisons between SW and LOTR at the time and I think people changed a bit from thinking "Well, I really this [X] movie." to "I like this [X] movie, so that [Y] has to be bad, right?". Maybe it fueled the negativity.

Trends come and go.
Star Wars - in the early 2000s - couldn't ever be as "significant" as it was in the last 70s and early 80s. It's only natural. Same thing kind of happened to LOTR or the recent Hobbit films, to be more precise. Other movies, franchises and trends have taken their place as the new star in town.

 

Yep. I find it interesting that The Hobbit films don't really have a great reputation among a lot of "geek culture" portions of the Internet. Similarly, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Jupiter Ascending takes a critical hammering from this crowd. Funny how the cycle plays out.

 

He could defeat Aragon with ease. This is no contest at all.

 

I wasn't talking who would win? I'm saying who's arc was better? Nothing happens with OWK he has nothing to overcome he beats darth maul with ease. I feel not much was learned about obi wan in the PT except he is a pretty level headed jedi

 

Are you telling me you were rooting for anakin more then Frodo? Anakin was a selfish,disobeying,disrespectful and psychotic Jedi. All the problems he had were because of him and him alone. Frodo was thrown into a journey he never asked for and finished it.
Yoda is a top 2 favorite character fo me in SW, but OT yoda not the PT yoda that let the sith fly right under his nose and destroy the Jedi. And OWK just did a terrible job of training anakin

 

The self-assured confidence of these assumptions is gold

Weird little elf man with a magic ring who likes to stare off into space a lot - or an internally tormented galactic warrior who spirals out of control and takes the galaxy with him?

An eclectic old magician who literally wears a "wizard hat" or the most beloved character in all of SW fandom (he was voted as such in the "This is madness" pole)?

A guy I had to google to figure out who he was or my favorite Jedi of all time?

A guy I had to google and still don't know who he is or Mace? Well you may have something on this one

 

First off I love yoda he's amazing in the OT but what about him is great in the PT? If he was a new character in the PT I wouldn't like him. And don't answer the questions if you know nothing of LOTR you just look ignorant.

 

Sorry, but an internally tormented galactic warrior? From your perspective maybe. But not mine. But then it's all subjective isn't it *shrug*

 

Not IMO. "The Matrix" relied on "looking cool" to smooth over its not inconsiderable problems. LOTR was given an unearned sheen of dramatic heft by the fact that it was based on a book series by an Oxford English professor, plus people were prepared to love it before it even came out -- they set the stage for the movies to be regarded "the series the prequels should have been," and all the "LOTR wins and the PT loses in the battle of the series" tripe that followed was simply the follow-through.

The most bizarre instance of this was the article on the premiere of ROTK that appeared in The New York Times. The alleged reporter quoted a woman in the audience who was reading one of the LOTR books, who put said book down and started babbling about....George Lucas? Where did that come from? According to this woman, Lucas "just sits in front of a computer screen all day," whereas St. Peter "The Great" Jackson really cares about what fans want...or something.

I liked "The Matrix" well enough when it first came out, and while I still consider it enjoyable, I find it to be surprisingly empty and sophomoric, possessing none of the depth that has been attributed to it. The overrated "bullet time" effect has no purpose except to rub the audience's collective face in how "cool" and "badass" all this is. Same with the effect of Trinity leaping into the air -- the film not only stops, it rotates completely around her before resuming.

And I've still yet to figure out how repeatedly flipping over enables one to avoid a rain of bullets. Sure does look cool, though.

You've arrived at this conclusion by polling every single person who has seen the TPM (sic)? Unless you have, kindly stop using phrases like "TPM left everybody very underwhelmed." Foremost among the things that annoy me about prequel-bashers is their insistence that "everyone," or "nearly everyone," agrees with them.

 

Always interesting to read others opinions. I'll always remember watching The Matrix for the first time. It was the intriguing story, and ultimately the connection I felt to Neo's initial disbelief and denial of everything that was going on around him that endeared me to his character. And obviously the characters ultimate arc was brilliantly told. It was (and still remains) the best instalment of the trilogy in my eyes. As for the LOTR? Well having previously read all 3 of the books when I was at school, I felt the films were a very competent, and compelling visual adaptation of those books. I couldn't really fault them.

 

That's nice. I don't think that Neo's ultimate arc was brilliantly told. I think it was very shallowly told, relying on Keanu Reeves's good looks and puppy dog eyes, and propped up with pseudo-deep gobbledygook like, "I can only show you the door, you have to walk through" and "There is no spoon." There was barely enough story to support one movie, let alone a trilogy.

The "Architect" (played by George Carlin) scene in "Scary Movie 3" was, IMO, a terrific spoof of the self-important faux philosophical babble in "The Matrix" series: "You are the eventuality of an anomaly," "You are a sedulant probability," "How about contingent affirmation? That's GOTTA mean something."

I could fault the LOTR movies for many things, among them being saccharine, bombastic, garish and boring.

 

That's fine. Your tastes vary. Both of you are right.