The Matrix vs. The Lord Of The Rings (trilogies)

I think part of the reason is that LOTR was made all at once so there was no pressure to make a sequel to generate more money. The Matrix, however, was made one by one and so the wachwski bros, possibly in a bid to make a quick buck, forgot to add substance to the second film, and substance (or any connection to the previous film) to the third. Also, here in Australia, the 2nd and 3rd matrix movies were released 8 months apart, so people were still thinking about plot holes in the 2nd film and the third came out with more holes than swiss cheese, and flopped.

The LOTR series told a coherant progressive story that had all the climaxes in the right places and built a cinematic structure that really is unprecedented in all of cinema.

The problem with "The Matrix" is that all three films are essentially the same movie. They stepped up the special effects but got lost in a lot of metaphysical claptrap that was not just hard to understand but left me underwhelmed. I don't believe there was enough thematic material for three "Matrix" films.

I guess from the other perspective, Peter Jackson simply had to adapt J.R.R.Tolkein's books (however inconsistent the movies may be) but the Wachowski brothers started from scratch.

With all of the sci-fi stories throughout it's history in all forms including especially novels about the machines taking over ("Terminator" is also on that same theme but includes time travel), the Wachoski brothers simply had to assemble a thematic storyline. There is a theme of dual worlds, one mastering over the other, in such old sci-fi classics as "Slan." The "one" or "saviour" concept is right out of "Dune" and the Bible! Derivitive? Yes, but cleverly derivitive. Well, at least in the first part

It was no simple task adapting the books to make three cinematically successful films of LOTR. The most significant change was probably moving the Battle for Helm's Deep to the end of "The Two Towers" when it took place in the beginning of the book. Some might cite Saruman's defection to the Dark Lord taking place in the first part to be the biggest change, or Saruman's end (which I understand was taken care of in the extended version which I have but haven't taken the time to watch). I didn't find the movies inconsistant as far as movies go, depending on what one means by "inconsistant."

I say 'inconsistent' in relation to the differences between the LOTR books and the film. A prime example is the fellowship of the ring. There are close to 80 pages about The four hobbits travelling through the shire to buckland, and then through the forest, where they meet characters like Tom Bombadil. There is no mention of this in the film. Neither is there any hint of the time between the passing of thering to frodo, and the beginning of the pilgrimage to rivendell. In the book, Nine years passes, but in the film, Frodo appears to have set out the very next day. Then, in the Return of The King, the scouring of the shire by saruman is completely over looked. The Ents are largely underdone. With that said, the movies are still probably the best films i've ever seen, and I would have enjoyed them more had I not read the books first, and found such astounding differences. I guess part of the reason is that to fit everything in would be too much of a good thing.

I think there's a lot to be said for creating trilogy movies in one filming, before their storylines can be ravaged by expectation and profiteering.

However, not every movie will be a classic, and worthy of the extended effort. If all movies were created this way, then we might have Catwoman II and III already waiting on the shelves, before any lessons could be learned.

They took a big gamble with LOTR, and I think it payed off, but I'm not sure how many times big budgets will be waged on the roll of those dice.

That's not inconsistancy, that's editing a book that would actually make perhaps a thirty hour film instead of the twelve hour film. The project was unprecedented in the history of cinema and despite the purist fans who regret the omission of, say, Tom Bombadil, I think Jackson did a much more incredible job than the Waschowski brothers in their twining together old sci-fi themes into the confusing and diluted "Matrix" movies. They simply turned into pedestrian action movies, and although the special effects and stunts were astounding, it left a lot to be desired.

The narrative storytelling in the original LOTR novels is exceptional and Jackson successfully captured the real essence of the books. "The Matrix" pounded on the same drum throughout three films and although watchable, I would only return to the first film if I had a thirst to see any of them again.

I'm just saying that for those of us who had read the books before the filsm were released, there was some concern (at least fo me). Like I said, the films are still great, but the fact that most of the first was edited extensively (I can't remember if Boromir has even died in the first book), means that the films can leave you slightly hungry for a little more. Im too cheap to buy the $100 extended version deluxe-maxi-super-exclusive-pack with extended features and get my DVDs pirated from Asia or the video store (A2K doesn't advocate or endorse or encourage this activity) so maybe that's the problem. But Tom Bombadil (despite his unfortunate musical disposition) was a cool character, and to hear some of his tales about the first men, elves, and sauron's mirkwood wheelings and dealings would have been interesting. If you only saw the films, and never read the books (as many people now feel inclined to do), you miss out on so much of the story. Didn't Tolkien divide the 3 books into four anyway (see the contents pages) so I don't know if Jackson could have played around with that? The missing areas needn't be covered extensively, but some are explored and then ignored (like when frodo sees the "scouring of the shire" in Galadriel's fancy-pants bowl.

PS: I must sound hypocritical, analysing the LOTR movies so harshly, and not talking about the craptacular matrix trilogy.

PSS: Craptacular! what great word :wink:

The original intent of Tolkien was six books.

I do believe Boromir met his end in "Fellowship."

As I haven't watched the final part (the 3 extended versions are much less than $100.00 over here), I don't know how much is devoted to the end of Saruman and the Scouring but from what I've that the loose end is tied up. It was edited out of the theatrical version because of length (the number of times the movie can be shown at the cineplex).

Lastly, I entirely endorse the sub-plot of Tom Bombadil -- an eccentric character not really crucial to the plot or even the background of the story. I realize their is a sentimental attachment to that character and he's the one character who one would see at the defunct LA Rennaissance Fair more than any other (although at the 1958 LA Sci-Fi Convention costume ball, I went as Gandalf the White). In a written narrative, Bombadil worked, in a cinematic narrative he would not have worked.

I was impressed how Jackson did translate the books to films, perhaps one of the best adaptations of literature every filmed.

"The Matrix" isn't crap but it's somewhat over-rated over being just another very good sci-fi action adventure. I saw "The Chronicles of Riddick" last night and it suffered from the same problem -- with all the great sci-fi material to adapt (with or without credit), they went for simplistic nonsense not much better than "Battlefield Earth," or, as it's otherwise know, "Alien Creatures with Carmen Miranda Come-F**k-Me-Pumps Try Wiping Out Scientology Altogether."

Now, as in "Airplane!" I know the image of John Travolta in dreadlocks and the whole alien gang singing a pop version of "Wiping Out Scientology" might come to mind.

The triple extended version in Our Shop is only $77.98 -- I should have waited to buy the set!

http://www.able2shop.com/search.php?query=The+Lord+of+the+Rings&mode=dvd

US dollars or Australian, it was $100 aust and that's where I live.

At a brick-and-mortar store or online? I have found it for even less on the Web but, of course, the freight to Australia might bring it back up to near $100.00. I don't think I'd personally want a bootlegged copy as they are of poor quality in sound and picture (usually someone sneaking into a theater with a video camera).

(And one wouldn't be getting the Extended Version as it is video only).

That's the advantage of free rentals (I work at a blockbuster outlet) and a + - DVD Burner. I buy lots of cheap DVD RWs and burn away. hehehe.

I also have a DVD burner but I'm curious where you could get any actual studio DVD's which aren't copyguarded.