Revolutions or Return of the King?

[NEON MERCURY]

..All Matrix does is give you a colpremisae, great visuals and horrible, horrible horrible, horrible horriblre horrible acting from Keanua Fishburne, Moss, etc, etc, etc, etc, the film will do nothing toi further film history..None of the matrx films can't hold a candle to what the lord of the rings film  will/has/had  ...[/size]

thats a bit extreme

..yeah after i read it .. irealize its a bit extreame and also that I can't speel woth a damn....

but people need to realize that more than likely the third LOTR film will be nom.  for an acad. award for best pic.  that as far as i can tell is FILM HISTORY....(an the caliber of films they are and will be warrants those nominations..IMO)

[Banky]

..All Matrix does is give you a colpremisae, great visuals and horrible, horrible horrible, horrible horriblre horrible acting from Keanua Fishburne, Moss, etc, etc, etc, etc, the film will do nothing toi further film history..None of the matrx films can't hold a candle to what the lord of the rings film  will/has/had  ...[/size]

thats a bit extreme

..yeah after i read it .. irealize its a bit extreame and also that I can't speel woth a damn....

but people need to realize that more than likely the third LOTR film will be nom.  for an acad. award for best pic.  that as far as i can tell is FILM HISTORY....(an the caliber of films they are and will be warrants those nominations..IMO)

thats not really what this thread is about but i see where your coming from.

Im gonna be as bold as to say that The Matrix Trilogy will be around for a long time and while it may not have the "Academy" appeal, it still is a groundbreaking, remarkable, set of movies.

Year after year, movies are amazing and have no Academy recognition.

[NEON MERCURY]

..All Matrix does is give you a colpremisae, great visuals and horrible, horrible horrible, horrible horriblre horrible acting from Keanua Fishburne, Moss, etc, etc, etc, etc, the film will do nothing toi further film history..None of the matrx films can't hold a candle to what the lord of the rings film  will/has/had  ...[/size]

thats a bit extreme

..yeah after i read it .. irealize its a bit extreame and also that I can't speel woth a damn....

but people need to realize that more than likely the third LOTR film will be nom.  for an acad. award for best pic.  that as far as i can tell is FILM HISTORY....(an the caliber of films they are and will be warrants those nominations..IMO)

thats not really what this thread is about but i see where your coming from.

Im gonna be as bold as to say that The Matrix Trilogy will be around for a long time and while it may not have the "Academy" appeal, it still is a groundbreaking, remarkable, set of movies.

Year after year, movies are amazing and have no Academy recognition.

..I  agree w/that also..its just that it could be nominated which would be cinematic history ....its' kind of cool ...IMO

[Banky]

..All Matrix does is give you a colpremisae, great visuals and horrible, horrible horrible, horrible horriblre horrible acting from Keanua Fishburne, Moss, etc, etc, etc, etc, the film will do nothing toi further film history..None of the matrx films can't hold a candle to what the lord of the rings film  will/has/had  ...[/size]

thats a bit extreme

..yeah after i read it .. irealize its a bit extreame and also that I can't speel woth a damn....

but people need to realize that more than likely the third LOTR film will be nom.  for an acad. award for best pic.  that as far as i can tell is FILM HISTORY....(an the caliber of films they are and will be warrants those nominations..IMO)

thats not really what this thread is about but i see where your coming from.

Im gonna be as bold as to say that The Matrix Trilogy will be around for a long time and while it may not have the "Academy" appeal, it still is a groundbreaking, remarkable, set of movies.

Year after year, movies are amazing and have no Academy recognition.

..I  agree w/that also..its just that it could be nominated which would be cinematic history ....its' kind of cool ...IMO

i guess we will agree to agree

[Lucinda Bryte]

The Matrix sucks.

LotR.  

[Banky]

i love it when people bring back my old threads

[NEON MERCURY]

Keep in mind this is not which movie you think will be better.  With that in mind, I would have to go with Revolutions.

..well I guess now we can finally admit that revolutions was at least in terms of the critics a flop...but it makes mad $$$$$$$$$$$$ so that s all that matters.....

as for me..i think it s better for a film to be praised by critics..and also make $$$$$$$$$$$

but thats just me .....

[Kal]

I personally love The Matrix and all that it means... its also an original movie written to be a movie... LOTR is a great movie and they did a tremendous job with the screenplay and all that, but the greatest part which is the story comes from a book...

I think these are two different things and when you're doing a movie on a story that you know was already successful and everybody loved it its different than with The Matrix (including the sequels) where nobody has any idea of what the hell will happen or how the story ends...

I give two thumbs up for both, but I know critics will praise LOTR and I also see a lot of Oscars coming for them and not too many for the Wachowski's...

[SHAFTR]

I personally love The Matrix and all that it means... its also an original movie written to be a movie... LOTR is a great movie and they did a tremendous job with the screenplay and all that, but the greatest part which is the story comes from a book...

I think these are two different things and when you're doing a movie on a story that you know was already successful and everybody loved it its different than with The Matrix (including the sequels) where nobody has any idea of what the hell will happen or how the story ends...

I give two thumbs up for both, but I know critics will praise LOTR and I also see a lot of Oscars coming for them and not too many for the Wachowski's...

But from a film perspective, the LotR films are head and shoulders above The Matrix movies.  I understand your point about LotR being based off of a book but I think that is moot when comparing movies.  The LotR films are better constructed, directed, acted and the CGI is used better.

[NEON MERCURY]

I personally love The Matrix and all that it means... its also an original movie written to be a movie... LOTR is a great movie and they did a tremendous job with the screenplay and all that, but the greatest part which is the story comes from a book...

I think these are two different things and when you're doing a movie on a story that you know was already successful and everybody loved it its different than with The Matrix (including the sequels) where nobody has any idea of what the hell will happen or how the story ends...

I give two thumbs up for both, but I know critics will praise LOTR and I also see a lot of Oscars coming for them and not too many for the Wachowski's...

But from a film perspective, the LotR films are head and shoulders above The Matrix movies.  I understand your point about LotR being based off of a book but I think that is moot when comparing movies.  The LotR films are better constructed, directed, acted and the CGI is used better.

YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT....SHAFTR

[Banky]

anyone now posting on this thread keep in mind that the original intent was not which is better, its which you wanted to see more

[NEON MERCURY]

..banky i know..its just now that after the hype or what have you of revlolutions has passed.....i thought i would bump this up.....

....hail to the KING

[Gold Trumpet]

I haven't liked any of the LOTR films at all. I haven't read any of the books, but from people I know, the book goes to levels of depth pretty deep and amazing to the point where I want to read them myself. Also, I do hear the films are very good in adapting the narrative of the novels. Thing is, though, the adaptation is likely superficial only.

LOTR is in the same category of the Star Wars Prequels and Matrix sequels for me. They extend into narrative for such long periods of time, tiltering on boredom only for the pay off of a few major action scenes. LOTR is different in that attempts drama. The other two are driven by information.

LOTR'S dramatic attempt is horrendous though because it caters to the action pay off. Fellowship, after the introduction and mission outline, went from place to place having battles after battles. Enemy changed, but the way the battles were presented seemed to change little. And the battles never forwarded anything. The people (or whatever) continued on to just meet new places and fight new people. Two Towers was build up to one extended action scene. Frodo started out from one place but by the end ended exactly in that same place. His buddy hobbits where on their own and met some tree people who came in handy to just fight the battle at the end. Befor the battle, the film just continues on and on and on in narrative. Gollum driven by desire to steel the ring time after time (repeated in Return of the Kings as seen in commercials). Nothing is felt. The story is completely superficial. This is a dick suck for everyone who loved the books. The films don't go after the depths of the film in any sense. They steal narrative and bastardize it for the action scenes. Fans of the book are just overcomed with joy to see the books represented in some way to large public appeal.

I really wish Princess Mononoke was talked about in the same way as Matrix-LOTR-Star Wars. Its the film that seems to accomplish what all those really failed to do for me. Unlike any of these films, its as rich, imaginative and as spirited as an fantasy action film can get.

[Find Your Magali]

Trumpet,

While agreeing wholeheartedly with your assessment of Princess Mononoke (and throwing Spirited Away into that mix, too), I find your seemingly intense dislike of LOTR odd.

I find Fellowship of the Rings just a fantastic ride of the movie, because it works as both a tremendous action piece, and as a sometimes-slower-than-expected character piece that nimbly sets up all of the arcs that will be explored in the second and third films, especially with Frodo, Sam and Aragorn. It stands alone as a superb movie, and is all the more haunting if you've read the books and (think) you know that fates that await these characters. ... In a way, Fellowship has the same challenge as Phantom Menace -- to tell us the beginning portion of a story that we already know the ending to (again, if we've read the books). ... But it succeeds in every way that Lucas came up short, giving us greater action and establishing the narrative without too much of an over-reliance on exposition. It just has a beautiful tone to it that sets up tales of courage and tragedy that are to follow.

Two Towers strays a bit more from the book, but necessarily, I think. It's a bit more muddled than the first film, as it must follow three threads throughout, while introducing new characters and plotlines, and it's simply not handled as deftly as the first film. ... Still, it gets the job done, especially with Frodo, Sam and Gollum (a cinema milestone).

Anyway, it's admittedly a narrow genre, but I can't think of any live-action fantasy films in the past 15 or so years that worked as effectively as LOTR has so far. I'd be curious if there are any live-action films of the genre that you've liked better recently...

[Redlum]

I wish the Extended Editions were the real deal. They are just so much better than the theatricals. I was actually a little disappointed with The Towers, but having watched the Extended version, the film actually breathes and flows in my mind now. I think at times there were definately places were Two Towers felt rushed and as a result felt superficial at times.

I think its completely wrong to compare these films to Star Wars and the Matrix. Even to put them in the same catergory. I also don't think folk should confirm their suspicions of superficiality with the Two Towers as I'm sure Return of the King will suprise a lot of people.

Here in the UK, the BBC have been running a "big read" poll to determine the nations favourite book. The piece they did on Lord of the Rings made the point that the pay off in this book is a result of the time invested. In the book there are pages where absolutely nothing happens and they trod through pages and pages of family history - The Council of Elrond being one huge boring chapter (bar a few moments). I don't think there is anthing wrong with this, I think its quite realistic in this way. The events that transpire don't just fall in place to allow the next bout of orc fighting - as could be misinterpreted by the theatrical editions of the movie. Tolkien wrote the book as he went along (in a "two people in a coffee shop" fashion).

Also, I think its unfair to question the amount of battles and their point after the meeting with Elrond. They aren't like Revolutions for example where they throw a fight scene in with (wow) guys on the ceiling with guns. The Mines of Moria sequences lead to the fall of Gandalf, and the Battle at the river leads to the fall of Boromir and the unfortunate parting of the fellowship. I think the last scenes are absolutely beautiful in their execution, Boromir being the best character in that film. Their point though? Well, its just survival isn't it? They didn't go looking for that fight.
A criticism may be that these set pieces were given too much focus but you cant adapt the book without them, and they certainly are the most exciting parts of the film.

I really think the Extended editions even the films out though, they definately remove the impression of going from action sequence to action sequence, which is not an inherent fault that is merely disguised by a longer running time; just a misinterpretation.