LOTR, The Matrix, and the Star Wars PT: Which trilogy will stand the test of time?

I do like the PT. I was just expecting much better. They're fine films, but they don't live up to the Star Wars standard.

And we can agree to like whatever we want, but that doesn't mean comparisons can't be made.

 

So were cool with that? ?

 

Cool with what?

 

I hate to break it to you, but when ROTK comes out, you're going to be seeing the phrase "best trilogy ever" thrown around an awful lot.

Yeah, it'll be thrown around a lot by a bunch of people deperately hoping it'll stick if they throw it around enough.

 

What's considered the king of trilogies right now? The Star Wars OT.

ANH and ESB are viewed as amazing films. ROTJ is viewed as a good movie that didn't keep up the quality of the first two.

FOTR and TTT are viewed as amazing films. But unlike with the OT, the third installment of LOTR will be as good as or better than the first two.

Given the choice between two great films and a good one, and three great films, LOTR may very well be the new king of trilogies when its last installment is released.

 

I'm with you, Darth_Insidious. The OT trilogy is the KING of trilogies right now, but I'm sure, IMHO, of course, that the LOTR trilogy will outdo even that.

Lady Sami

 

I do like the PT.

Then why do you do nothing but slam it?

I was just expecting much better. They're fine films, but they don't live up to the Star Wars standard

Which is what?

ANH and ESB are viewed as amazing films. ROTJ is viewed as a good movie that didn't keep up the quality of the first two.

By whom?

FOTR and TTT are viewed as amazing films.

By whom?

But unlike with the OT, the third installment of LOTR will be as good as or better than the first two.

How can you tell? You haven't seen it yet. Or have you made up your mind to adore it before it's even out?

Given the choice between two great films and a good one, and three great films, LOTR may very well be the new king of trilogies when its last installment is released.

According to whom?

 

Accoring to critics (RT) and according to general people (IMDB). And don't start with the "They didn't ask everyone who saw the movies!".

How can you tell? You haven't seen it yet. Or have you made up your mind to adore it before it's even out?

It was filmed at the same time as the other two, in the same places, by the same director, with the same cast, the same crew, and the same post-production team. LOTR is one nine hour movie cut into three parts. Which is why those individual parts will all be equal in quality. Which is why The Two Towers was met with the same public and critical acclaim that The Fellowship of the Ring was, and why Return of the King will be as well.

 

Then why do you do nothing but slam it?

Not slamming, expressing disappointment. You've got more than enough fawning over the PT here already.

Check out the earlier post history. See the enthusiasm over the AOTC DVD, as I was the first to reveal a line change here, and one of the first to post screen captures.

 

Accoring to critics (RT)

Yeah, the same geniuses who dissed the OT when it came out and slobbered over any number of mediocre movies.

and according to general people (IMDB).

According to the LOTR geeks who populate IMDB and consistently vote their precious movies to the top while giving the prequels poor ratings.

And don't start with the "They didn't ask everyone who saw the movies!".

Why? It's the truth. IMDB represents a tiny fraction of moviegoers. Most moviegoers probably don't even know IMDB exists, and of those who do, most probably don't care enough to vote on the polls.

Which is why those individual parts will all be equal in quality.

How? Episodes of the same TV show, filmed with the same cast, same crew, same director, same writers, et al, are often very uneven in quality.

Not slamming, expressing disappointment.

Saying the dialogue and acting and directing are horrible, and constantly promoting other movies over them, isn't slamming?

You've got more than enough fawning over the PT here already.

Wow, imagine that! People are actually praising SW movies on a SW site! So people have to come in and fawn over other movies and say how much better they are for the sake of...what, exactly?

 

"According to the LOTR geeks who populate IMDB and consistently vote their precious movies to the top while giving the prequels poor ratings."

I think that's getting tiresome Shelley. It's high time to drop the 'media bias, lotr geek conspiracy theories'.

Besides it's not like bashing still occurs on these boards, only this thread and the sanctuary contain negative comments.

Time to move on.

 

Besides it's not like bashing still occurs on these boards, only this thread and the sanctuary contain negative comments.

*gapes* You're kidding, right?

I have lost count of the times I have seen people bash the prequels all over the site. In the EU forums. In the Saga forum. In the OT forum.

 

Yeah, the same geniuses who dissed the OT when it came out and slobbered over any number of mediocre movies.

Which I've still yet to see proof of. Last time people tried to prove it, we ended up with one negative review of ESB vs. five positives. Check out the Episode III/Matrix sequels thread for that.

According to the LOTR geeks who populate IMDB and consistently vote their precious movies to the top while giving the prequels poor ratings.

Yes, when LOTR gains in polls it's just because the fans swarm over all those polls. Of course. Bet they're all deleting their cookies and voting over and over, right?

Conspiracy theorists =

Why? It's the truth. IMDB represents a tiny fraction of moviegoers. Most moviegoers probably don't even know IMDB exists, and of those who do, most probably don't care enough to vote on the polls.

IMDB represents a fraction of general moviegoers, and has no particularity to any fanbase, a la TheForce.net or TheOneRing.net. IMDB is impartial.

How? Episodes of the same TV show, filmed with the same cast, same crew, same director, same writers, et al, are often very uneven in quality.

And yet, they aren't filmed as one huge film. They're all self-contained stories that have no requirement to have each individual episode written or filmed by the same people. And most shows have different directors and writers for many episodes.

TTT was also recieved just as well as FOTR, so you have precedent.

 

Which I've still yet to see proof of.

OK, here's a few of the nonexistent negative comments about ANH:

"On the debit side are the film's human performances. Save for Alec Guiness, the cast is unmemorable." - Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

"It is all as exciting as last year's weather reports. What you ultimately have is a set of giant baubles manipulated by an infant hand." - John Simon, New York

"Between these two factions, the ideological differences are hardly more striking than those that separate the Greens and Golds in prep-school athletics." - Molly Haskell, The Village Voice (referring to the war between the Rebels and "Imperialists")

"STAR WARS is an entertaining crowd-pleaser and a monumental technical achievement, but it's a long way from being a classic." - Stephen Farber, New West

Oh, and I provided quotes from "People" and "Newsweek" (both of which were critical of the perfect, holy ESB -- "People" called it unsatisfying and dissed the characters; the other said that it, like ROTJ, was cluttered and muddy-looking) in another thread, which you must've ignored because you said you've "yet to see proof of" negative reviews for the OT.

Yes, when LOTR gains in polls it's just because the fans swarm over all those polls.

Yep.

Of course. Bet they're all deleting their cookies and voting over and over, right?

Some of them probably do. They like to post stuff such as, "We can't let (rival movie) beat LOTR!" and "LOTR has already killed off SW and Harry Potter...it'll kill off Matrix too." They also like to encourage boycotts of other movies so LOTR comes out on top.

IMDB represents a fraction of moviegoers, and has no particularity to any fanbase, a la TheForce.net or TheOneRing.net. IMDB is impartial.

IMDB represents a fraction of moviegoers, and LOTR fan(atics) have signed up in huge numbers.

And yet, they aren't filmed as one huge film.

And yet, they are filmed as one huge story.

They're all self-contained stories that have no requirement to have each individual episode written or filmed by the same people.

*cough*"24," "X-Files"*cough*

TTT was also recieved just as well as FOTR, so you have more evidence right there.

And TPM and AOTC were received just as well as the OT. Movies do not make $300 million and $400 million without being liked by an awful lot of people. Otherwise, LOTR and Spiderman aren't that well liked either, because both LOTR movies grossed WAY less than TPM and Spiderman grossed about the same amount. Oh, and "Matrix" isn't that well liked at all, because it didn't gross even $200 mil.

 

Shelley, how about you actually post links to the whole reviews? Isolated quotes don't show me the entire review was negative. That Gene Siskel review was positive! (Can be found here: http://entertainment.metromix.chicagotribune.com/top/1,1419,M-Metromix-StarWars-starwarsreview!ArticleDetail-3724,00.html) As was that fourth one you posted! Pathetic

You wanna play? Fine, let's start with ESB.

Original release, positive

Original release, positive

Original release, positive

Original release, positive

Original release, positive >>> http://entertainment.metromix.chicagotribune.com/top/1,1419,M-Metromix-StarWars-empirereview!ArticleDetail-3747,00.html


Post links to full reviews

Your conspiracy comments about LOTR fans banding together to ensure they win every poll around are laughable, and I'd wager I'm not alone in thinking that way.

*cough*"24," "X-Files"*cough*

The exception, not the rule.

And TPM and AOTC were received just as well as the OT. Movies do not make $300 million and $400 million without being liked by an awful lot of people. Otherwise, LOTR and Spiderman aren't that well liked either, because both LOTR movies grossed WAY less than TPM and Spiderman grossed about the same amount. Oh, and "Matrix" isn't that well liked at all, because it didn't gross even $200 mil.

TPM and AOTC made so much money because of massive turnout, which is no indication of how much they were liked. Spiderman and LOTR were recieved very well by critics and the public. AOTC and TPM were not.

And The Matrix grossed over $400 million worldwide, fantastic for an R rated film with no existing fanbase.

 

"TPM and AOTC made so much money because of massive turnout, which is no indication of how much they were liked. Spiderman and LOTR were recieved very well by critics and the public. AOTC and TPM were not. ... And The Matrix grossed over $400 million worldwide, fantastic for an R rated film with no existing fanbase."

The Matrix didn't have an existing fanbase but LOTR and Spiderman each have a gigantic fanbase. The producers at New Line said this when they approved LOTR, as stated in the Time article about TTT. To suggest that LOTR and Spiderman came out of nowhere, while SWs success is because of 'massive turnout', is absurd. While I am a huge fan of LOTR, I am quite sure that critics wouldn't be so kind if it weren't based on highly respected literature.

If my memory is correct, the weekly dropoffs at the box office from the PT were comparable to Spiderman, LOTR and the Matrix...So its just because its SW that people go to see it right? Every other successful movie, its because they 'deserved' it? I find it insulting when people suggest that others see SW out of habit, while for LOTR or Spiderman, its because they are good movies.

Only in your mind.

EDIT: Harry Potter should, at some point, be included in this discussion. While the films may not be considered classics, the books deserve more respect. They are not just for kids. Anyone interested in SW/LOTR/Matrix should read these books. They are amazing, the storytelling is extremely tight, the characters well-developed, and it gets more interesting with each book. If they were written by a professor as opposed to a seemingly 'normal' woman such as Rowling, they would be considered classic literature.

 

I never said that LOTR or Spiderman came out of nowhere!

Critics wouldn't be kind to Spidey or LOTR is they weren't based on respected literature? First of all, I'd question Spidey's "respectability" in the upper echelon's of critics, and second, do you know how many movies were based off of "highly respected movies" and were torn up by critics? If anything, book to film adaptations of respected literature are scrutinized more closely because they have a lot to live up to. Such is the case with Ralph Bakshi's version of, guess what, Lord of the Rings, which wasn't considered well-done at all.

Massive turnout is the reason why TPM and AOTC, movies that were recieved by both critics and the public as mediocre and disappointing. For example, look at the week to week drop-offs of Spiderman and AOTC. AOTC had large percentages, whereas Spidey's were more normal. Spiderman was also recieved better critically and publicly.

 

Truth be told, people weren't quite as fond of THE TWO TOWERS as we are often led to believe. I remember immediately after the film's release, many fans who post at TheOneRing.net were appalled at the drastic changes PJ had made to the book and were disappointed by the generally sloppy and uneven feeling of the film. The love story, in particular, received many unfavorable comments. There were many heated discussions about the merits of the film, and trust me when I say that a good number of LOTR fans were disappointed with TOWERS.

I think if people were really honest with themselves, they'd have to admit that THE TWO TOWERS is an inferior follow-up to a mighty good film, but the problem is, people are so eager to push this absurd box office horse race that they're willing to blindly proclaim THE TWO TOWERS the "winner" for no other reason than it makes ATTACK OF THE CLONES the "loser".

Personally, I rather enjoyed THE TWO TOWERS despite its jarring flaws, but the praise being heaped upon it is baffling to say the least. I mean, it won an Oscar for Best Visual Effects despite a good quarter of the film having some of the worst blue screen work I've seen in years (pretty much every shot with Merry and Pippin riding on Treebeard's shoulders) and some distractingly bad CGI work (the warg riders; the Ents). And while there are certainly some good performances, I find the phoney-balony accents and general over-acting unworthy of some of the praise it has received.

It just gets annoying to see people overlook some not insignificant flaws in competing films in their quest to crucify Lucas and his movies. Even the critics have had to (perhaps conciously) overlook some of the same flaws in TOWERS that they have been quick to not only point out but focus on almost exclusively in their reviews of CLONES.

Whatever. All I'm saying is, let's be a little more even handed in our opinions, o.k.?

 

When you, DI, say that the success of SW is due to massive turnout, I interpret that as its because of a large fanbase. When you say that LOTR and Spiderman do well because critics like it, I interpret that as saying fanbase has nothing to do with it.

And don't both TPM and AOTC have 'fresh' ratings on rottentomatoes.com?

"Massive turnout is the reason why TPM and AOTC, movies that were recieved by both critics and the public as mediocre and disappointing. For example, look at the week to week drop-offs of Spiderman and AOTC."

I thought AOTC had similar dropoffs. Anway, I noticed you didn't compare Spiderman to TPM. Spiderman made around $115 mil its first weekend, TPM around $65 or so right? Which film ended up grossing more?

"I'd question Spidey's "respectability" in the upper echelon's of critics"

It received good reviews, but to lump it in with LOTR is inaccurate. Many that I read considered it a good superhero movie, but I don't remember it getting considered for best picture during awards season.

"book to film adaptations of respected literature are scrutinized more closely because they have a lot to live up to."

SW is held to a higher standard, the OT, than any other film.

The reason I used LOTR as an example is because it is a fantasy film, which usually don't garner much respect from critics. All I am saying is that the books give LOTR some added 'respect'.

"Bakshi's version of, guess what, Lord of the Rings, which wasn't considered well-done at all. "

Thats because it sucked. But I don't see anyone considering the Ewok Adventure or the Star Wars Holiday Special classics either. Proof that not everything with the SW name turns to gold. Sometimes its because...gasp!...people actually really like the films.

EDIT: Very well said Durwood.

 

Yes, the critical and public praise of TTT was just to spite George Lucas.

Unbelievable.

TTT has a higher rating on Rotten Tomatoes, has .1 less on IMDB, and has higher Cinemascores. It's viewed as a worthy follow-up to FOTR in general.

The bad bluescreen with Treeabeard and the hobbits is exaggerated. In a few particular scenes it was indeed bad, but certainly not for a quarter of the movie. They weren't even there for a quarter of the movie. Most of the time it was fine.

The least of the CGI in TTT, the wargs, were much better looking than the least of the CGI in AOTC, Anakin on the shaak.

Death Star: Yes, AOTC and TPM are both fresh. But there's a huge different between being Spiderman fresh (89%) and AOTC fresh (63%).

Really, get over it. There's no media conspiracy against George Lucas and Star Wars. There's no conspiracy by the LOTR fans to scan the net for all polls and flock to them to ensure a win for their side. There's no conspiracy with the Academy members against the prequels.

It's really getting old.

 

as a huge lotr fan who frequents other lotr sites i can tell you that the majority of the people werent mad about the movie, the movie was great, but the adaptation was not,

i personaly love the love story and i love the scene with elrond and arwen, i found it quite chilling, and i dont know about lotr fans flocking to polls, thats unlikely


and agian, this is one of the things that makes me hate the internet, treebeard and the hobbits bluescreen being bad?? ive never heard of anything like that ever and no one i ever have talked to has said anything about that


until now, i personaly agree with george lucas that alot of the PT bashing is because the internet poured gas on the fire, if it wasnt for the internet i think that jar jar and all that crap wouldnt have been nearly as hated

 

...in their quest to crucify Lucas and his movies.

Good grief! sounds a bit paranoid, doesn't it? I mean I never found out what was feeding this media bias theory, but it's moved on to crucifixion now.

let's be a little more even handed in our opinions , o.k.
Absolutely, good idea.

I have to sayit seems rather unlikely that the iMDB has been taken over by LOTR fans.

IMO the LOTR trilogy so far has been more even in quality, it would seem safe to predict that the next one will be equally as good.

AOTC was better than TPM, many would agree, I think, and maybe the next one will be better, but it will be an uneven trilogy in terms of quality, so I'd give LOTR the edge on standing the test of time.

 

I say po-ta-to, they say po-tah-to. Curious.

 

Oops.

 

"Really, get over it. There's no media conspiracy against George Lucas and Star Wars."

When did I say that?

EDIT: redundancy.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who have loved the PT. All this supposed 'proof' that the public really hates it will never change that.