Here’s the argument for saying the Matrix: by the time ROTJ came on the scene, the blossom was already off the rose. You can’t compare Ep IV to Ep I — that’s horrendous. But make ROTJ your point of departure, and the fall from grace isn’t that far.
Holy crap, I can’t decide. Although I probably have to go Matrix; number 2 was bad enough that I didn’t see number 3. I unfortunately saw all three Star Wars prequels.
So I think the Star Wars prequels were the bigger fall from grace, but the Matrix sequels the bigger disappointment.
The SW prequels had low expectations because the ending was already know. The only suspense was created by “Gee, I wonder how unawful George can make the prequels?”
The Matrix sequels were poo slurpees after what was arguably one of the best SF films ever. Hey, dating a dominatrix will do that to you.
Warning: If you are an AOLTW stock holder or you have any SW tattoos, you must self-recuse.
At the end of the first Matrix movie, Neo achieved Messianic superbeing status. He could stop a storm of bullets by waving his hand, fly, absorb the powerful enemies, etc. and etc.
As far as I could tell, there was no more need for more movies. The story had ended with Neo reaching the status off deity.
To some extent, one of the fight scenes in a sequel showed how pointless the sequel was. 100 superbad Smiths attack Neo – he fights them awhile – then he just flies off, unscratched.
It seems to me that a single movie story became a trio of movies purely to rake in the cash.
We see a similar thing going on with the Silence of the Lamb movies … they create prequels and a sequel merely because the original story was so hugely popular.
Follow the Matrix for its story, not its action sequences or its main characters. If you do that, you’ll actually uncover a really cool story that, I suspect, shadows some form of modern gnosticism. It’s not about Neo – it’s about the real world vs. the Matrix world. The first one was the best, but I like the others just as much. Call me crazy. Plus Rage Against the Machine during closing credits? Just plain awesome.
The SW prequels have to be one of the biggest disappointments in my entire life. I am NOT joking. Empire Strikes Back is one of my favorite of all time, Phantom Menace one of my most hated films – how can it be??? And the inconsistencies are inexcusable. Lucas is the classic story of a guy who got lucky and was in the right place at the right time just for once – and he has proved this to us through the test of time. (I don’t know what’s worse – Howard the Duck or Jar-Jar). He has no real talent.
I really liked the first Silence of the Lambs movie, Mind Hunter, based on Thomas Harris’ earlier book, The Red Dragon. I never saw the later movie released called The Red Dragon.
I can’t believe he continued to write more Hannibal books and make movies after that, though, seems so stupid.
I was OK with the second Matrix film. There was enough philosophical stuff to keep it compelling for me. The third one looked like they were just tired of writing and didn’t care if the ending made any sense at all. It was horrible. I voted for the Matrix because I didn’t expect much more from the Star Wars prequels than I saw.
I agree with danithew’s assessment re: the Matrix (for that matter, I believe that the same thing happened with Pirates of the Caribbean).
The turning of Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader had the potential to be a powerful story. Unfortunately, we got what we got instead. I say the prequels are a bigger disappointment.
Well, I’ll admit I went in with trepidation regarding the Star Wars prequels. I also left a sleeping bag in a line for several days to get opening day tickets. So I got caught up in the hype. But man that midnight showing was disappointing.
The reason I put Matrix as the bigger disappointment was simply because it was so inventive and there was no indication (as with Lucas) that there might be a problem. Remember that there were rumors of problems with Lucas prior to the release. There was a series of bad films he’d been involved with and then the *huge* gap between making films.
BTW – I’d reject those saying Lucas was lucky. The first two films in Star Wars were near top notch. The third was disappointing but it simply isn’t as bad as many make out. The Indy series were great, even if the sequels didn’t live up to the original. And don’t forget American Graffiti and then his partial involvement in things like Apocalypse Now.
The reason to worry about Lucas were things like the Young Indiana Jones chronicles.
The Matrix sequels were just massively misconceived though. However what was so bad about the 2cd one was horrible editing. (Less is more) A better editing job would have made that a much better film. The chase on the freeway remains one of my favorite “bits” in film. However the film is just pointless. The Matrix gets an upgrade so Neo isn’t so powerful and then they completely blow the chance to do their Superman film.
Danithew, I remain convinced that Hannibal was the author throwing it in the face of Hollywood by writing a book that was unfilmable. The book wasn’t bad, but I was amazed Ridley Scott made as good a film out of it as he did. The book is basically a black comedy throwing it in readers faces that they like Hannibal so much. (The villain you love to love) So in effect the whole book is one big joke on that.
I didn’t bother to read the latest prequel. I heard the movie was pointless. A lot of Hannibal’s origins were in the book Hannibal so even there I don’t know what the point was.
However Red Dragon is interesting. (It’s the original book – Silence was the sequel) The movie original was great, although low budget and a tad dated. It’s a very different take on the character. The remake I was mixed on. It wasn’t as bad as I feared, given the director. However it lacked soul in a crucial way.
RotJ ain’t bad. Yes the Swiss Family Robinson aspect of Endor is annoying now, but as a kid I loved it. Yes Lucas should have gone with the Wookie planet as originally planned. The would have made more sense. But saying that 6 prepared everyone for the drop that was 1-3 is preposterous.
The Matrix is more of a mixed bag. A lost opportunity rather than a complete blunder. I agree with Harry from AICN that they probably should have had the freakin’ werewolves or at least some super villains other than the twins. So they could have done more, but the story while overly complex in exposition, was much better done that Eps 1-3. I’ll admit that I still don’t get the end. Anyone care to explain?
If we want to get really geeky, we could include Clone Wars and The Animatrix in the equation. I think Clone Wars is better than Eps 1-3. I also think that Animatrix is better than Clone Wars.
btw, I disagree with Danithew about the Matrix. At the end of the first one Neo achieved superbeing status but not messianic status. He hadn’t freed his people. The problem was that in some aspects they dropped the superbeing status for the sequels. He wasn’t able to bend the reality of the Matrix, which would have been interesting.
Red Dragon was a pretty good book and I liked the movie as well. So maybe I was being too hasty in condemning it. After what Susan said, I’m curious now about Manhunter.
ARJ, you may be right about him not achieving the status of Messiah – but the way the movie ended, it didn’t look like it was going to be much of a fight.
I think that the whole Matrix was going to get another reboot, but that the this time Neo had altered the nature of the Matrix such that Zion’s status would be protected. Or something (it was very unclear). Anyhoo, the Matrix was going to do things differently this time.
I agree with danithew. They made him too powerful at the end of the first Matrix and, when they realized they were going to make more movies, they had to depower him in order to make the conflicts realistic. The first movie really was a stand alone.
I won’t know if Indy 4 will ruin the series, because I have decided to just not watch it.
Finally, I’ve always liked RotJ. I’ve never had a problem with Ewoks either and I’ve never understood the massive hate directed toward those teddy bears.
How bad is the Phantom Menace? Never before have I seen a movie rip-off a movie that spoofed the original. Remember in Space Balls when they capture the stunt doubles? Lucas must have liked that idea so much, he put it in his prequel. My jaw dropped when I saw that.
Let’s not forget the best Star Wars movie, Empire, was not directed by Lucas.
The Matrix movies were so disappointing but I’d have to go with Star Wars on this one.
I’m worried about Indiana Jones. Seriously worried.
The big flaw in the sequels is that while Neo had control of the Matrix program the program was still running on computers. So there was this whole inside/outside bit going on. Plus, why would the computers not just kill the humans? There was a lot they could have gone with. And perhaps cleared up that stupid “humans as batteries” idea.
Instead they went this whole other way that made little sense.
And the third film was sooo horrible I almost left the theatre.
Tim, while Lucas didn’t direct Empire, he was so heavily involved that he was quasi-directing. So it’s a tad difficult to say Lucas was out of the loop in Empire.
Indiana Jones I’m somewhat worried about simply because they’ve had great scripts in the past which Lucas kept rejecting. However Spielberg is, if anything, an even better director now than in the 80′s. (Although the original is still a masterpiece) He hasn’t done the typically “I’ve lost it” director thing. So I have faith *if* the script is good.
The danger is in how they deal with Ford’s age. I really wish they’d made it 5 years earlier.
BTW – let’s also not forget that the director of Empire went on to do the Robocop sequel which was amazingly bad. Far worse than the prequels or Matrix sequels.
One day you’ll sit down with your children and tell them how great the Matrix was and that action movies (for better and worse) were never the say after it.
But for better or worse? Back on the thread about Die Hard, I can’t helped but think how I missed the good ‘ol action movies wher substance meant more than style.
Tim J., both Die Hard and The Matrix were fantastic — I agree that they both spawned copycats that were completely miserable (Equilibrium, anyone?), but that is no reason to hate the movies themselves.
First, it took three movies and over twenty years for Star Wars to tank. Matrix tanked in one movie and in about two years.
Plus, most of us saw Star Wars as kids–through eyes full of childhood wonder–so we may feel more betrayed by the debacle of Phantom Menace, and we may feel more annoyed by the cartoonish nature of the CGI versus the special effects of the late 70s, early 80s, but to the young kids that have always known CGI and saw PM at the age of six like we did, it was a much better film.
In other words, I believe if I was in my mid 30s when I saw Star Wars I would have recognized it for the classic it is, but I’d have been mature enough to recognize it as the collosal piece of cornball cheese it also is. Both films benefit from being seen by a six-year old boy.
Plus, ask yourself what you would rather sit through again. I’d never see Matrix Reloaded again, and never bothered to see Matrix Revolutions.
Be honest, I think even those of us who were diappointed by Phantom Menace bought it on DVD to at least complete our sets.
Tim, I think there were a slew of Matrix-like influences the past 5 years. However the amount influence was tempered somewhat by the atrociously bad sequels. The second Die Hard wasn’t fantastic, but all things considered wasn’t that bad once you got past the major implausibility of no one being able to radio the planes.
I think thought that the Matrix affected not just cheesy bad B-movies but a lot of more mainstream ones like X-men.
I can honestly say I never bought any of the first trilogy of Star Wars although I have the original trilogy proudly here. (Although the “extras” for IV were kind of annoying – I didn’t need all the Episode I like “expansions” of Tatooine)
I have the second Matrix film mainly for that car chase. Fantastic.
I only have the original Die Hard.
I have the fully Indy trilogy.
I also have the full “man with no name” Sergio Leone trilogy.
I had to vote Star Wars because I’m such a fan of the original – episodes 4-6. ROTJ did’n't stink as much as you say it did, SG. Actually, the stupidest part where everyone’s singing that dumb song, (which I loved because it was so cheesy) they have removed on the recent DVD I bought. Meanwhile, I DID buy the first three of the set (episodes 1-3) and I’ve never actually been able to sit through the entirety of episode one. Isn’t that so sad?
I am not worried about Indy 4. I have faith in the duo that is Spielberg-Ford. I’m so excited about it, I’d better calm down though, because I’m probably just clamouring for a major let down.
Brian G speaks truth. We have Phantom Menace on the DVD shelf in all of its black hole-like suckitudinousness.
Are DVD sales stats publicly available? How sales for the Matrix trilogy versus the SW prequel trilogy compare would be interesting. I bet sales for Matrix 1 are high, and are very low for 2 & 3. Much lower than SW 1-3.
I have a friend who owned the special effects company who did the first matrix. He told me that there was never to be a sequel to the matrix, but rather the movie studio pushed and paid the w. brothers to commit to 2 more movies. In fact he said that after the movies were done, the movie executives knew that they were terrible, and they were afraid that after the first week they would not make any big bucks because once everyone heard how bad the movie was they would avoid seeing it until video. So they created the biggest and most expensive ad campaign in movie history to pull as many viewers in the first week before word got around about how bad the second movie was.
The Star Wars prequels were disappointing but I thought the last film redeemed the series to some extent. There were a lot of problems and there is no question George Lucas should be banned from writing dialogue – but there’s still a lot of interesting things to ponder that show up in the stories. For example, I like pondering the idea of robot and clone armies fighting each other. Tech versus biotech, I guess.
I liked Darth Maul as a villain. Very menacing. I was sad he didn’t get to last for more than one film. The Sith apprentice that followed was boring, except for the part where he gets his hands lopped off.
I think the first Star Wars series spoiled most of us – as someone else has commented – we saw it with eyes of wonder. But these days we’ve seen so many special effects and interesting story lines that we can’t be awed by films anymore.
While the last prequel certainly was an improvement, all the good that happened was immediately undone by the melodramatic cry from Darth Vader at the very end. I laughed out loud at that scene.
By the way, I just dug this up. It’s SG’s review of Revenge of the Sith and subsequent discussion of the Star Wars franchise. I wonder if those of you who graded the prequels then, would give them the same grades after thinking about it.
Tim, I would probably downgrade a little now that the hype is over; maybe from an A- to a B+ for Revenge of the Sith, which I own and think is a pretty good movie.
I actually enjoy The Matrix Reloaded. I don’t particularly care about the Zion scenes and usually skip them. I don’t care about the philosophical mumbo-jumbo, but I like the way the story was framed when back in the Matrix. I like the Merovingian character, and I wish he and Persephone were drawn out a little bit more.
The Matrix Revolutions was the weakest of the three movies. But overall, the storyline between the three movies was taut, complex and clear.
The Star Wars prequels have some serious problems. First of all, Jar Jar. No doubt that character killed the enjoyment of the prequels.
Secondly there was a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo, just like in the Matrix, that just didn’t have the same magic as in the original trilogy. I mean, who really cares about the mitichlorians.
Thirdly, the dialog was atrocious. Not that the Matrix had an Oscar-worthy script, but comparably, the Matrix script was far cleaner and realistic. Do I even need to bring up the “hold me like you did at the lake on Naboo?”
Thirdly the acting in the prequels outside the Emperor, who gloried in his role, was also atrocious and wooden.
Finally, at least for me, I did not feel any compelling drama in the prequels until half-way through Revenge of the Sith when the Emperor reveals himself. From that moment on, I felt the compelling drama that made the original trilogy so good.
As far as Indy 4 is concerned, I don’t know if I am worried. While George Lucas has not done well story wise these past, well, two decades, (with the exception of the Young Indiana Jones series), and Harrison Ford has had a mixed record, Steven Spielberg has been tremendous. Tell me what “flop” has he had since Jurassic Park II?
First, as executive producer he’s been a total disaster: Men In Black II, for example. But even as a director, he’s hit-and-miss. A.I. is largely a mixed experiment. Minority Report did not wow the critics. The Terminal was terrible and was a bona fide flop. Even War of the Worlds, which I enjoyed, was not all that great.
Personally I loved Minority Report. War of the Worlds wasn’t my favorite, but it wasn’t a flop. A.I. has probably the most mixed result. I think most people fall into the love it or hate it category.
Yeah, I would agree with you on the producing side. He was also behind “Taken” the sci-fi channel mini-series, which was waaaaaay too long. But as director, I think he’s done a fantastic job.
Dan, the problem with the mystic mumbo jumbo in the “new” trilogy is that he attempted to explain to much. Almost unmythologizing it except that the demythologizing made absolutely no sense. (I think he was going for Stoic parallels in his clumsy “let’s bring archetypes into the film” way he does) In the original there was mysticism but it was (thankfully) left unexplained. There was a force but we knew nothing about it.
The biggest problem with the Matrix sequels was that scenes went on too long. (This could have been cleaned up with editing and *dramatically* improved things) Then in the original there was always the “setup” for the action. Something portending what was to come. Think the shot of the boots when Neo and Trinity walks into the front of the building to rescue Morpheus. Ditto in other action films. Think the dropping of the rose and the bringing out of the shotgun in T2. Even Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Die Hard do this. It’s pretty important for action and is why some action films fail, despite good choreography. It’s all about editing. It’s very, very hard to edit action.
Regarding cheesy wooden scripts. Note that the first two original Star Wars films had that as well. I mean seriously, go watch IV again. Yeah it’s bad, but it wasn’t what made the new trilogy fail. I think there was just *too much* green screen work and CGI characters which made the actors basically mimes. Most actors have trouble with that.
Minority Report was good until the third act. Then it turned into a bad episode of Murder She Wrote and undermined the tone of the rest of the movie.
AI is Spielberg’s underrated masterpiece. And yes I love the “extraneous” fourth act as well as it really sets up everything else. Even if you don’t like the plot you have to admit that visually it’s the best thing Spielberg has ever done.
War of the Worlds was a mess and just didn’t work on so many levels. What was surprising is that Spielberg was a good enough directory that he still made it compelling despite a *horrible* script that lost everything that made the first film interesting. Great sound work on the film too. (I can’t remember if they won an academy award but they should have)
As a directory I think Spielberg’s only failed a few times. I mean out right failure and not “it’s at best so-so but I was expecting great.” They would be Hook and Always. I’ve heard bad things about Amistad but never saw it so I can’t speak to it. The Terminal failed, but for fairly complex reasons. But it was no where as bad as folks made out. It’s just that Spielberg couldn’t manage the light touch he got in Catch Me If You Can.
As a Producer he’s produced a ridiculous amount of films. (Over 100) So it’s hard to say he’s a failure as a producer. Further it’s hard to tell how much his involvement with each film was. Consider for instance Poltergeist where he was so involved he probably should have gotten co-director status. The films he produced in the 80′s were all pretty great, except for The Money Pit. (Which is a horrible film that I consider a guilty pleasure)
He then went into a period of mainly producing animation. (I think this was after Disney’s Who Framed Roger Rabbit which he produced) When he came out of that period he did some questionable quasi-cartoons like the live action Flintstones & Casper. But he got back on target with Twister which, while hardly a great film was a fun blockbuster.
Since then he doesn’t appear to be as involved or is involved in smaller projects or his own films. Yes there was Men in Black II which was questionable. But a few years earlier there was Men in Black that was great. Yeah he did Jurassic Park III which I still can’t figure out. However wasn’t that when he formed his studio and needed projects? The only other bad film was the Zorro sequel which was plain bad and surprisingly so considering all the talent involved on all sides of the camera.
I’ve only seen The Matrix once and am pretty sure that I’ll never see it again. On the other hand, I know that I’ll watch episodes IV and V of Star Wars again–cheese and all.
The Matrix is flawed almost from the get-go. For me, the set up is the most interesting part of the story. The rest is far less intriguing–yeah, lots of great action, but I’d rather spend more time watching Neo discover the larger world. As for the sequels–I doubt I’ll ever see them.
The Star Wars Prequels were the bigger disappointment from me. I enjoyed Matrix but I didn’t really expect much from it. I expected a lot more from the prequels. Not necessarily cinematic greatness but at least consistency! Anakin’s fall could have been very powerful. Instead it was inane and stupid. Don’t get me started on the [lack of] romance, either.
I actually loved the whole of Minority Report. I guess for me I like it when the bad guy gets it in the end. And I think it was well done to show that choice was not taken away from the individual even though the precogs foresaw what they did.
A.I. was definitely unique. You could so tell Spielberg’s parts and Kubrick’s parts. It was definitely a very fascinating mix. I had mixed feelings about it. I think I enjoyed the Kubrick cold-hearted influence better than Spielberg’s mushy emotionalism. It made me reminisce back to some of Kubrick’s best.
I do think, with Spielberg at the helm, the next Indiana Jones won’t be bad. How good it will be will depend on how much magic the three of them still have in them.
As for the Star Wars trilogy, the other main issue I have with the prequels deals with Count Dooku. I thought that was the weakest character of the trilogy (and that is saying a lot with how weak Amidala was–and not to even mention Jar Jar). Here is a rogue Jedi who works for the Emperor, playing one side against the other. What would have been a far better way to utilize him would be to make him a rogue Jedi who feels the Jedi Council and the rest of the Jedi don’t see the evil in their own backyard, and been forced out by the Jedi, a third party, who fights against both the Jedi and the Sith. Now that would have been awesome! Then his attempts to convince Obi-wan to come away with him would have had more compelling drama and effect than the useless attempt to lure Obi-wan to the dark side. Like Obi-wan would do something that stupid. But, would he leave the Jedi Council because they were not seeing the bigger threat?
Instead, Count Dooku became just another body count in Anakin’s downward spiral to the dark side.
But may I please say, the fall from grace of the Star Wars series happened in 1983, a little movie called Return of the Jedi.
Only the first 2 of those movies are worth anything at all, and of them, the first, original Star Wars, stands alone as unique achievement, something that could be enjoyed without any prior knowledge of any characters or myths or story arcs. The Empire Strikes Back somewhat fulfilled the promise of a good sequel, but none of the rest work at all.
D. Fletcher, will you please drop by the NOM board or e-mail me at ann dot porter at gmail dot com? I have been very worried about you, and miss you a lot.
Dan, one problem with the prequels is the way Lucas set up these villains. You were *supposed* to think Darth Maul and Dooku were badasses but he never *showed* them being so. I mean Maul looked mean, but he never did anything until the end which came out of no where. Contrast this with Darth Vader who *clearly* is dangerous in the films. I think one weakness of VI is that the Emperor isn’t shown until then and we don’t know what to make of him.
III was better in this regard *only* if you’d watched the cartoons. (Which admittedly were good – far better than the trilogy itself) Otherwise the droid Sith just came out of no where. You don’t know why he was injured or why he was so dangerous. Interestingly this huge flaw of Lucas wasn’t made in the cartoons. They were handled very well setting the tone in a way Lucas never managed.
That poll is interesting considering that Star Wars Ep. 1 and Matrix Rev. are far from the worst movie on that list. I think it speaks to what we are discussing here, and that is expectations.
For the record, I didn’t think Return of the Jedi was that bad either. And I think Attack of the Clones is much worse than Phantom Menace–Jar-Jar and all.
Please explain to us what made Ep II worse than Ep I. In Stars Wars Paper Rock Scissors I think that Jar-Jar beats “sand in all sorts of places” every time.
It’s hard to say really–and my POV may be more than a little skewed. Phantom was one of the 1st movies I saw when I returned from my mission, so I thought it was good and all, but seriously flawed. I thought the two-headed play-by-play of the pod race was worse than Jar-Jar.
In Clones, I absolutely hated the love story. It was just terrible. I remember losing a lot of interest in the plot about 2/3 of the way thru. The Yoda scene at the end was nice, but not enough.
I probably need to watch them again to truly judge them, but I just remember being more disappointed with Clones even after the train-wreck of Phantom.
The single most important ingredient to the success of Star Wars was a great villain, dressed all in black, with a commanding if mechanical voice and completely scary-wonderful mask and a way of breathing that suggested he had emphysema. It’s Darth Vader, of course, and his presence makes those first two films (along with some great humorous lines from Harrison Ford).
But humanizing Darth in the third film was a great mistake, almost an unjustice to the franchise lovers.
And then Darth, the actual villainous character, is completely missing from the prequels. Yes, I know, it’s him growing up as some kind of Messiah-gone-wrong, but the actual Darth-in-costume was missing, and any humor too, or any sense of coherence or importance. Liam Neeson has stated publicly that he never had a worse experience making a film than Phantom Menace, and thought Lucas was/is a terrible writer/director, which is true. And Alec Guinness was happy to be killed in the first film, because he didn’t want to ever return to the series.
His role as Obi-Wan Kenobi in the original Star Wars trilogy, beginning in 1977, brought him worldwide recognition by a new generation. Guinness agreed to take the part on the condition that he would not have to do publicity to promote the film. He was also one of the few cast members who believed that the film would be a boxoffice hit and negotiated a percentage deal that made him very wealthy in later life.
However, he was never happy with being identified with the part, and expressed great dismay at what he perceived to be the obsessive, out-of-touch-with-reality fan following the Star Wars trilogy attracted. Obi-Wan’s death was at his request, in order to limit his subsequent role in the series, as he couldn’t face saying “those bloody awful lines”. However, in the DVD commentary of Star Wars: A New Hope, Lucas mentions that Guinness wasn’t happy about the script re-write in which Obi-Wan is killed. He once said in an interview that he “shrivelled up” every time Star Wars was mentioned to him. However, despite his dislike of the films, fellow cast members Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, and Carrie Fisher (as well as director George Lucas) have always spoken highly of his courtesy and professionalism on and off the set of the films (including, reportedly, helping Ford find an apartment to live in during the film’s shooting in England), and did not let his evident dislike of the material show to his co-stars during filming. In fact, Lucas credited him with inspiring fellow cast and crew to work harder during filming, saying he was instrumental in helping to complete filming of the movies.
In his autobiography Blessings In Disguise he tells an imaginary interviewer “Blessed be Star Wars!” while in his final volume of autobiography A Postively Final Appearance he recounts grudgingly gives an autograph to a young fan who claimed to have watched Star Wars over a hundred times, on the condition that the fan promises to stop watching the film, because as Guinness put it “this is going to be an ill effect on your life.” The fan was stunned at first, but later thanked him. Guinness reportedly grew so tired of modern audiences seeming to remember him only for his role of Obi-Wan Kenobi that he would throw away the fan mail he received from Star Wars fans unopened.
Th problem for me with Minority report is that the ending is completely backward. I read the original Philip K. Dick short story just before the movie came out. I loved the story–it’s one of those classic sci-fi stories that makes you think. the ending flows logically from the rest of the story, but is still a bit of a surprise (mostly because by the time I figured out where the story was headed I wasn’t sure if the guy would choose to sacrifice himself or not). The movie was in some ways better than I expected (I’m not a huge Tom Cruise fan) but the ending is 180 degrees from the story. It’s very bland. I realize they changed the ending to make it more resonant with today’s culture, but the magic of exploring a rather interesting ethical dilemma is gone.
I voted for Star Wars because I loved all of episodes 4-6, including the ewoks, and Lucas ruined even those with his stupid new ending song and by including scenes that were edited out of the original moves for good reason!
I’m of the opinion that Dick’s novels usually have bad endings. So it’s hard to blame the Hollywood films that also have bad endings. Further the good Hollywood adaptations, like Bladerunner take extreme liberties with the films. (Actually, outside of Bladerunner has their been a good Dick film?)
I always thought Dick had some good ideas but wasn’t that great a writer.
I’m curious though as the movie Minority Report was based on was one of the books I’ve not read. How did it end?
As I said, I thought the film itself was fantastic for the first two acts. The third act is, in my opinion, amazingly bland and quite different from the tone of the rest of the film.
As I said Dan, most Dick movies have bad endings. In some ways Total Recall was more in keeping with the silliness of some of Dick’s books. But it really wasn’t great science-fiction. But that has as much to do with the director as anyone.
Amen Dan (#41). I like story above all else, and the Matrix trilogy had a story line that kept me wanting to see all three of them repeatedly. I own all 3 and enjoy them. And to whoever it was that was confused by the ending of the third film– it’s about yin-yang survival. Very gnostic. Very oriental. Very cool.
The SW prequels – true, the eyes of wonder of a little kid might have had something to do with it, and I see my son now digging the prequels (not Sith, he’s not old enough yet) like I dug the originals. Weird. I’m trying to correct this so that his view of films isn’t skewed. Honestly, what little kid understands the inner workings of the taxation within a trade franchise and those of senate and judiciary branches of a republic?
Honestly, what little kid understands the inner workings of the taxation within a trade franchise and those of senate and judiciary branches of a republic?
I guess today’s kids are just more sophisticated than ours….
Further Reading
Steve Evans
RJH
Scott B.
John C.
Susan M
Aaron Brown
ninemoons
arandomjohn
kulturblogadmin
Kyle M
Brad
KulturBlogGuest
MCQ
Wm
Rebecca
Ivan
Geoff J
btdgreg
Clark Goble
Aaron R.
Tim J
Here’s the argument for saying the Matrix: by the time ROTJ came on the scene, the blossom was already off the rose. You can’t compare Ep IV to Ep I — that’s horrendous. But make ROTJ your point of departure, and the fall from grace isn’t that far.
Holy crap, I can’t decide. Although I probably have to go Matrix; number 2 was bad enough that I didn’t see number 3. I unfortunately saw all three Star Wars prequels.
So I think the Star Wars prequels were the bigger fall from grace, but the Matrix sequels the bigger disappointment.
I defy anyone to assail the logic of my argument:
The SW prequels had low expectations because the ending was already know. The only suspense was created by “Gee, I wonder how unawful George can make the prequels?”
The Matrix sequels were poo slurpees after what was arguably one of the best SF films ever. Hey, dating a dominatrix will do that to you.
Warning: If you are an AOLTW stock holder or you have any SW tattoos, you must self-recuse.
Kurt, I tend to agree. ROTJ killed my soul the first time I heard “Yub-Nub.”
I’ve never cared much about the Matrix.
At the end of the first Matrix movie, Neo achieved Messianic superbeing status. He could stop a storm of bullets by waving his hand, fly, absorb the powerful enemies, etc. and etc.
As far as I could tell, there was no more need for more movies. The story had ended with Neo reaching the status off deity.
To some extent, one of the fight scenes in a sequel showed how pointless the sequel was. 100 superbad Smiths attack Neo – he fights them awhile – then he just flies off, unscratched.
It seems to me that a single movie story became a trio of movies purely to rake in the cash.
We see a similar thing going on with the Silence of the Lamb movies … they create prequels and a sequel merely because the original story was so hugely popular.
Follow the Matrix for its story, not its action sequences or its main characters. If you do that, you’ll actually uncover a really cool story that, I suspect, shadows some form of modern gnosticism. It’s not about Neo – it’s about the real world vs. the Matrix world. The first one was the best, but I like the others just as much. Call me crazy. Plus Rage Against the Machine during closing credits? Just plain awesome.
The SW prequels have to be one of the biggest disappointments in my entire life. I am NOT joking. Empire Strikes Back is one of my favorite of all time, Phantom Menace one of my most hated films – how can it be??? And the inconsistencies are inexcusable. Lucas is the classic story of a guy who got lucky and was in the right place at the right time just for once – and he has proved this to us through the test of time. (I don’t know what’s worse – Howard the Duck or Jar-Jar). He has no real talent.
I really liked the first Silence of the Lambs movie, Mind Hunter, based on Thomas Harris’ earlier book, The Red Dragon. I never saw the later movie released called The Red Dragon.
I can’t believe he continued to write more Hannibal books and make movies after that, though, seems so stupid.
I was OK with the second Matrix film. There was enough philosophical stuff to keep it compelling for me. The third one looked like they were just tired of writing and didn’t care if the ending made any sense at all. It was horrible. I voted for the Matrix because I didn’t expect much more from the Star Wars prequels than I saw.
After falling asleep to Jar Jar Binks, I never saw the other two prequels. Never saw the Matrix sequels either. Based on this post, I never will.
I agree with danithew’s assessment re: the Matrix (for that matter, I believe that the same thing happened with Pirates of the Caribbean).
The turning of Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader had the potential to be a powerful story. Unfortunately, we got what we got instead. I say the prequels are a bigger disappointment.
The question is, will Indy 4 ruin Indy?
Well, I’ll admit I went in with trepidation regarding the Star Wars prequels. I also left a sleeping bag in a line for several days to get opening day tickets. So I got caught up in the hype. But man that midnight showing was disappointing.
The reason I put Matrix as the bigger disappointment was simply because it was so inventive and there was no indication (as with Lucas) that there might be a problem. Remember that there were rumors of problems with Lucas prior to the release. There was a series of bad films he’d been involved with and then the *huge* gap between making films.
BTW – I’d reject those saying Lucas was lucky. The first two films in Star Wars were near top notch. The third was disappointing but it simply isn’t as bad as many make out. The Indy series were great, even if the sequels didn’t live up to the original. And don’t forget American Graffiti and then his partial involvement in things like Apocalypse Now.
The reason to worry about Lucas were things like the Young Indiana Jones chronicles.
The Matrix sequels were just massively misconceived though. However what was so bad about the 2cd one was horrible editing. (Less is more) A better editing job would have made that a much better film. The chase on the freeway remains one of my favorite “bits” in film. However the film is just pointless. The Matrix gets an upgrade so Neo isn’t so powerful and then they completely blow the chance to do their Superman film.
Danithew, I remain convinced that Hannibal was the author throwing it in the face of Hollywood by writing a book that was unfilmable. The book wasn’t bad, but I was amazed Ridley Scott made as good a film out of it as he did. The book is basically a black comedy throwing it in readers faces that they like Hannibal so much. (The villain you love to love) So in effect the whole book is one big joke on that.
I didn’t bother to read the latest prequel. I heard the movie was pointless. A lot of Hannibal’s origins were in the book Hannibal so even there I don’t know what the point was.
However Red Dragon is interesting. (It’s the original book – Silence was the sequel) The movie original was great, although low budget and a tad dated. It’s a very different take on the character. The remake I was mixed on. It wasn’t as bad as I feared, given the director. However it lacked soul in a crucial way.
RotJ ain’t bad. Yes the Swiss Family Robinson aspect of Endor is annoying now, but as a kid I loved it. Yes Lucas should have gone with the Wookie planet as originally planned. The would have made more sense. But saying that 6 prepared everyone for the drop that was 1-3 is preposterous.
The Matrix is more of a mixed bag. A lost opportunity rather than a complete blunder. I agree with Harry from AICN that they probably should have had the freakin’ werewolves or at least some super villains other than the twins. So they could have done more, but the story while overly complex in exposition, was much better done that Eps 1-3. I’ll admit that I still don’t get the end. Anyone care to explain?
If we want to get really geeky, we could include Clone Wars and The Animatrix in the equation. I think Clone Wars is better than Eps 1-3. I also think that Animatrix is better than Clone Wars.
btw, I disagree with Danithew about the Matrix. At the end of the first one Neo achieved superbeing status but not messianic status. He hadn’t freed his people. The problem was that in some aspects they dropped the superbeing status for the sequels. He wasn’t able to bend the reality of the Matrix, which would have been interesting.
Red Dragon was a pretty good book and I liked the movie as well. So maybe I was being too hasty in condemning it. After what Susan said, I’m curious now about Manhunter.
ARJ, you may be right about him not achieving the status of Messiah – but the way the movie ended, it didn’t look like it was going to be much of a fight.
I think that the whole Matrix was going to get another reboot, but that the this time Neo had altered the nature of the Matrix such that Zion’s status would be protected. Or something (it was very unclear). Anyhoo, the Matrix was going to do things differently this time.
I agree with danithew. They made him too powerful at the end of the first Matrix and, when they realized they were going to make more movies, they had to depower him in order to make the conflicts realistic. The first movie really was a stand alone.
I won’t know if Indy 4 will ruin the series, because I have decided to just not watch it.
Finally, I’ve always liked RotJ. I’ve never had a problem with Ewoks either and I’ve never understood the massive hate directed toward those teddy bears.
How bad is the Phantom Menace? Never before have I seen a movie rip-off a movie that spoofed the original. Remember in Space Balls when they capture the stunt doubles? Lucas must have liked that idea so much, he put it in his prequel. My jaw dropped when I saw that.
Let’s not forget the best Star Wars movie, Empire, was not directed by Lucas.
The Matrix movies were so disappointing but I’d have to go with Star Wars on this one.
I’m worried about Indiana Jones. Seriously worried.
The big flaw in the sequels is that while Neo had control of the Matrix program the program was still running on computers. So there was this whole inside/outside bit going on. Plus, why would the computers not just kill the humans? There was a lot they could have gone with. And perhaps cleared up that stupid “humans as batteries” idea.
Instead they went this whole other way that made little sense.
And the third film was sooo horrible I almost left the theatre.
Tim, while Lucas didn’t direct Empire, he was so heavily involved that he was quasi-directing. So it’s a tad difficult to say Lucas was out of the loop in Empire.
Indiana Jones I’m somewhat worried about simply because they’ve had great scripts in the past which Lucas kept rejecting. However Spielberg is, if anything, an even better director now than in the 80′s. (Although the original is still a masterpiece) He hasn’t done the typically “I’ve lost it” director thing. So I have faith *if* the script is good.
The danger is in how they deal with Ford’s age. I really wish they’d made it 5 years earlier.
BTW – let’s also not forget that the director of Empire went on to do the Robocop sequel which was amazingly bad. Far worse than the prequels or Matrix sequels.
Yeah, why aren’t the Robocop sequels options?
I’m with Susan. The Matrix wasn’t good enough to be disappointed with its sequels.
Rusty,
One day you’ll sit down with your children and tell them how great the Matrix was and that action movies (for better and worse) were never the say after it.
“action movies were never the same after it.”
But for better or worse? Back on the thread about Die Hard, I can’t helped but think how I missed the good ‘ol action movies wher substance meant more than style.
Tim J., both Die Hard and The Matrix were fantastic — I agree that they both spawned copycats that were completely miserable (Equilibrium, anyone?), but that is no reason to hate the movies themselves.
Equilibrium–is that the one with Christian Bale? That was pretty bad.
I agree with you, but I think Die Hard did more for action movies in the late 80′s/early 90′s, than the Matrix has done is the past decade.
Matrix is the only way to vote.
First, it took three movies and over twenty years for Star Wars to tank. Matrix tanked in one movie and in about two years.
Plus, most of us saw Star Wars as kids–through eyes full of childhood wonder–so we may feel more betrayed by the debacle of Phantom Menace, and we may feel more annoyed by the cartoonish nature of the CGI versus the special effects of the late 70s, early 80s, but to the young kids that have always known CGI and saw PM at the age of six like we did, it was a much better film.
In other words, I believe if I was in my mid 30s when I saw Star Wars I would have recognized it for the classic it is, but I’d have been mature enough to recognize it as the collosal piece of cornball cheese it also is. Both films benefit from being seen by a six-year old boy.
Plus, ask yourself what you would rather sit through again. I’d never see Matrix Reloaded again, and never bothered to see Matrix Revolutions.
Be honest, I think even those of us who were diappointed by Phantom Menace bought it on DVD to at least complete our sets.
Tim, I think there were a slew of Matrix-like influences the past 5 years. However the amount influence was tempered somewhat by the atrociously bad sequels. The second Die Hard wasn’t fantastic, but all things considered wasn’t that bad once you got past the major implausibility of no one being able to radio the planes.
I think thought that the Matrix affected not just cheesy bad B-movies but a lot of more mainstream ones like X-men.
I can honestly say I never bought any of the first trilogy of Star Wars although I have the original trilogy proudly here. (Although the “extras” for IV were kind of annoying – I didn’t need all the Episode I like “expansions” of Tatooine)
I have the second Matrix film mainly for that car chase. Fantastic.
I only have the original Die Hard.
I have the fully Indy trilogy.
I also have the full “man with no name” Sergio Leone trilogy.
I had to vote Star Wars because I’m such a fan of the original – episodes 4-6. ROTJ did’n't stink as much as you say it did, SG. Actually, the stupidest part where everyone’s singing that dumb song, (which I loved because it was so cheesy) they have removed on the recent DVD I bought. Meanwhile, I DID buy the first three of the set (episodes 1-3) and I’ve never actually been able to sit through the entirety of episode one. Isn’t that so sad?
I am not worried about Indy 4. I have faith in the duo that is Spielberg-Ford. I’m so excited about it, I’d better calm down though, because I’m probably just clamouring for a major let down.
Brian G speaks truth. We have Phantom Menace on the DVD shelf in all of its black hole-like suckitudinousness.
Are DVD sales stats publicly available? How sales for the Matrix trilogy versus the SW prequel trilogy compare would be interesting. I bet sales for Matrix 1 are high, and are very low for 2 & 3. Much lower than SW 1-3.
I have a friend who owned the special effects company who did the first matrix. He told me that there was never to be a sequel to the matrix, but rather the movie studio pushed and paid the w. brothers to commit to 2 more movies. In fact he said that after the movies were done, the movie executives knew that they were terrible, and they were afraid that after the first week they would not make any big bucks because once everyone heard how bad the movie was they would avoid seeing it until video. So they created the biggest and most expensive ad campaign in movie history to pull as many viewers in the first week before word got around about how bad the second movie was.
The Star Wars prequels were disappointing but I thought the last film redeemed the series to some extent. There were a lot of problems and there is no question George Lucas should be banned from writing dialogue – but there’s still a lot of interesting things to ponder that show up in the stories. For example, I like pondering the idea of robot and clone armies fighting each other. Tech versus biotech, I guess.
I liked Darth Maul as a villain. Very menacing. I was sad he didn’t get to last for more than one film. The Sith apprentice that followed was boring, except for the part where he gets his hands lopped off.
I think the first Star Wars series spoiled most of us – as someone else has commented – we saw it with eyes of wonder. But these days we’ve seen so many special effects and interesting story lines that we can’t be awed by films anymore.
That’s really true, Dan.
While the last prequel certainly was an improvement, all the good that happened was immediately undone by the melodramatic cry from Darth Vader at the very end. I laughed out loud at that scene.
By the way, I just dug this up. It’s SG’s review of Revenge of the Sith and subsequent discussion of the Star Wars franchise. I wonder if those of you who graded the prequels then, would give them the same grades after thinking about it.
The last comment on the thread made me chuckle.
Tim, I would probably downgrade a little now that the hype is over; maybe from an A- to a B+ for Revenge of the Sith, which I own and think is a pretty good movie.
…. “I’m nakid.” Awesome.
I own 4 Matrix DVDs.
I own 3 VHS tapes of IV – VI. I also have the laser disc rips.
I bought Ep I in Taiwan on VCD as a novelty. I gave it away as a white elephant about two years ago.
I stand by my review of Ep IV and the entire series that Tim J just linked to. In fact I’m surprised at how much I like my own comments.
I chose the Star Wars prequels.
I actually enjoy The Matrix Reloaded. I don’t particularly care about the Zion scenes and usually skip them. I don’t care about the philosophical mumbo-jumbo, but I like the way the story was framed when back in the Matrix. I like the Merovingian character, and I wish he and Persephone were drawn out a little bit more.
The Matrix Revolutions was the weakest of the three movies. But overall, the storyline between the three movies was taut, complex and clear.
The Star Wars prequels have some serious problems. First of all, Jar Jar. No doubt that character killed the enjoyment of the prequels.
Secondly there was a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo, just like in the Matrix, that just didn’t have the same magic as in the original trilogy. I mean, who really cares about the mitichlorians.
Thirdly, the dialog was atrocious. Not that the Matrix had an Oscar-worthy script, but comparably, the Matrix script was far cleaner and realistic. Do I even need to bring up the “hold me like you did at the lake on Naboo?”
Thirdly the acting in the prequels outside the Emperor, who gloried in his role, was also atrocious and wooden.
Finally, at least for me, I did not feel any compelling drama in the prequels until half-way through Revenge of the Sith when the Emperor reveals himself. From that moment on, I felt the compelling drama that made the original trilogy so good.
As far as Indy 4 is concerned, I don’t know if I am worried. While George Lucas has not done well story wise these past, well, two decades, (with the exception of the Young Indiana Jones series), and Harrison Ford has had a mixed record, Steven Spielberg has been tremendous. Tell me what “flop” has he had since Jurassic Park II?
Dan….
First, as executive producer he’s been a total disaster: Men In Black II, for example. But even as a director, he’s hit-and-miss. A.I. is largely a mixed experiment. Minority Report did not wow the critics. The Terminal was terrible and was a bona fide flop. Even War of the Worlds, which I enjoyed, was not all that great.
Personally I loved Minority Report. War of the Worlds wasn’t my favorite, but it wasn’t a flop. A.I. has probably the most mixed result. I think most people fall into the love it or hate it category.
Yeah, I would agree with you on the producing side. He was also behind “Taken” the sci-fi channel mini-series, which was waaaaaay too long. But as director, I think he’s done a fantastic job.
Dan, the problem with the mystic mumbo jumbo in the “new” trilogy is that he attempted to explain to much. Almost unmythologizing it except that the demythologizing made absolutely no sense. (I think he was going for Stoic parallels in his clumsy “let’s bring archetypes into the film” way he does) In the original there was mysticism but it was (thankfully) left unexplained. There was a force but we knew nothing about it.
The biggest problem with the Matrix sequels was that scenes went on too long. (This could have been cleaned up with editing and *dramatically* improved things) Then in the original there was always the “setup” for the action. Something portending what was to come. Think the shot of the boots when Neo and Trinity walks into the front of the building to rescue Morpheus. Ditto in other action films. Think the dropping of the rose and the bringing out of the shotgun in T2. Even Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Die Hard do this. It’s pretty important for action and is why some action films fail, despite good choreography. It’s all about editing. It’s very, very hard to edit action.
Regarding cheesy wooden scripts. Note that the first two original Star Wars films had that as well. I mean seriously, go watch IV again. Yeah it’s bad, but it wasn’t what made the new trilogy fail. I think there was just *too much* green screen work and CGI characters which made the actors basically mimes. Most actors have trouble with that.
Minority Report was good until the third act. Then it turned into a bad episode of Murder She Wrote and undermined the tone of the rest of the movie.
AI is Spielberg’s underrated masterpiece. And yes I love the “extraneous” fourth act as well as it really sets up everything else. Even if you don’t like the plot you have to admit that visually it’s the best thing Spielberg has ever done.
War of the Worlds was a mess and just didn’t work on so many levels. What was surprising is that Spielberg was a good enough directory that he still made it compelling despite a *horrible* script that lost everything that made the first film interesting. Great sound work on the film too. (I can’t remember if they won an academy award but they should have)
As a directory I think Spielberg’s only failed a few times. I mean out right failure and not “it’s at best so-so but I was expecting great.” They would be Hook and Always. I’ve heard bad things about Amistad but never saw it so I can’t speak to it. The Terminal failed, but for fairly complex reasons. But it was no where as bad as folks made out. It’s just that Spielberg couldn’t manage the light touch he got in Catch Me If You Can.
As a Producer he’s produced a ridiculous amount of films. (Over 100) So it’s hard to say he’s a failure as a producer. Further it’s hard to tell how much his involvement with each film was. Consider for instance Poltergeist where he was so involved he probably should have gotten co-director status. The films he produced in the 80′s were all pretty great, except for The Money Pit. (Which is a horrible film that I consider a guilty pleasure)
He then went into a period of mainly producing animation. (I think this was after Disney’s Who Framed Roger Rabbit which he produced) When he came out of that period he did some questionable quasi-cartoons like the live action Flintstones & Casper. But he got back on target with Twister which, while hardly a great film was a fun blockbuster.
Since then he doesn’t appear to be as involved or is involved in smaller projects or his own films. Yes there was Men in Black II which was questionable. But a few years earlier there was Men in Black that was great. Yeah he did Jurassic Park III which I still can’t figure out. However wasn’t that when he formed his studio and needed projects? The only other bad film was the Zorro sequel which was plain bad and surprisingly so considering all the talent involved on all sides of the camera.
Definitely Star Wars.
I’ve only seen The Matrix once and am pretty sure that I’ll never see it again. On the other hand, I know that I’ll watch episodes IV and V of Star Wars again–cheese and all.
The Matrix is flawed almost from the get-go. For me, the set up is the most interesting part of the story. The rest is far less intriguing–yeah, lots of great action, but I’d rather spend more time watching Neo discover the larger world. As for the sequels–I doubt I’ll ever see them.
The Star Wars Prequels were the bigger disappointment from me. I enjoyed Matrix but I didn’t really expect much from it. I expected a lot more from the prequels. Not necessarily cinematic greatness but at least consistency! Anakin’s fall could have been very powerful. Instead it was inane and stupid. Don’t get me started on the [lack of] romance, either.
read this
read this too.
Actually, you might as well just start
here and keep going for a while.
Clark,
I actually loved the whole of Minority Report. I guess for me I like it when the bad guy gets it in the end. And I think it was well done to show that choice was not taken away from the individual even though the precogs foresaw what they did.
A.I. was definitely unique. You could so tell Spielberg’s parts and Kubrick’s parts. It was definitely a very fascinating mix. I had mixed feelings about it. I think I enjoyed the Kubrick cold-hearted influence better than Spielberg’s mushy emotionalism. It made me reminisce back to some of Kubrick’s best.
I do think, with Spielberg at the helm, the next Indiana Jones won’t be bad. How good it will be will depend on how much magic the three of them still have in them.
As for the Star Wars trilogy, the other main issue I have with the prequels deals with Count Dooku. I thought that was the weakest character of the trilogy (and that is saying a lot with how weak Amidala was–and not to even mention Jar Jar). Here is a rogue Jedi who works for the Emperor, playing one side against the other. What would have been a far better way to utilize him would be to make him a rogue Jedi who feels the Jedi Council and the rest of the Jedi don’t see the evil in their own backyard, and been forced out by the Jedi, a third party, who fights against both the Jedi and the Sith. Now that would have been awesome! Then his attempts to convince Obi-wan to come away with him would have had more compelling drama and effect than the useless attempt to lure Obi-wan to the dark side. Like Obi-wan would do something that stupid. But, would he leave the Jedi Council because they were not seeing the bigger threat?
Instead, Count Dooku became just another body count in Anakin’s downward spiral to the dark side.
I’m not a Matrix lover, so I didn’t vote.
But may I please say, the fall from grace of the Star Wars series happened in 1983, a little movie called Return of the Jedi.
Only the first 2 of those movies are worth anything at all, and of them, the first, original Star Wars, stands alone as unique achievement, something that could be enjoyed without any prior knowledge of any characters or myths or story arcs. The Empire Strikes Back somewhat fulfilled the promise of a good sequel, but none of the rest work at all.
D. Fletcher, will you please drop by the NOM board or e-mail me at ann dot porter at gmail dot com? I have been very worried about you, and miss you a lot.
Dan, one problem with the prequels is the way Lucas set up these villains. You were *supposed* to think Darth Maul and Dooku were badasses but he never *showed* them being so. I mean Maul looked mean, but he never did anything until the end which came out of no where. Contrast this with Darth Vader who *clearly* is dangerous in the films. I think one weakness of VI is that the Emperor isn’t shown until then and we don’t know what to make of him.
III was better in this regard *only* if you’d watched the cartoons. (Which admittedly were good – far better than the trilogy itself) Otherwise the droid Sith just came out of no where. You don’t know why he was injured or why he was so dangerous. Interestingly this huge flaw of Lucas wasn’t made in the cartoons. They were handled very well setting the tone in a way Lucas never managed.
Clark, which cartoons are you talking about? Is there a specific set? I’ve never heard of/seen these before and I’m curious.
danithew -
he’s talking about the excellent Clone Wars cartoons that were broadcast on the cartoon network.
They were handled by the same people as the very well done Samuri Jack cartoon and are now available on DVD.
also -
1. Return of the Jedi is actually okay.
2. Lucas made Howard the Duck.
3. The Matrix sequels were an incomprehensible mess. At least the Star Wars prequels had easy to follow story lines.
There is a poll running on Slashdot right now asking a very similar question.
That poll is interesting considering that Star Wars Ep. 1 and Matrix Rev. are far from the worst movie on that list. I think it speaks to what we are discussing here, and that is expectations.
For the record, I didn’t think Return of the Jedi was that bad either. And I think Attack of the Clones is much worse than Phantom Menace–Jar-Jar and all.
Tim J.,
Please explain to us what made Ep II worse than Ep I. In Stars Wars Paper Rock Scissors I think that Jar-Jar beats “sand in all sorts of places” every time.
D. sums it up quite well in comment #51.
It’s hard to say really–and my POV may be more than a little skewed. Phantom was one of the 1st movies I saw when I returned from my mission, so I thought it was good and all, but seriously flawed. I thought the two-headed play-by-play of the pod race was worse than Jar-Jar.
In Clones, I absolutely hated the love story. It was just terrible. I remember losing a lot of interest in the plot about 2/3 of the way thru. The Yoda scene at the end was nice, but not enough.
I probably need to watch them again to truly judge them, but I just remember being more disappointed with Clones even after the train-wreck of Phantom.
I agree with Tim. Attack of the Clones had so many problems, biggest of which was the failure to convince us of the “love” between Anakin and Amidala.
The single most important ingredient to the success of Star Wars was a great villain, dressed all in black, with a commanding if mechanical voice and completely scary-wonderful mask and a way of breathing that suggested he had emphysema. It’s Darth Vader, of course, and his presence makes those first two films (along with some great humorous lines from Harrison Ford).
But humanizing Darth in the third film was a great mistake, almost an unjustice to the franchise lovers.
And then Darth, the actual villainous character, is completely missing from the prequels. Yes, I know, it’s him growing up as some kind of Messiah-gone-wrong, but the actual Darth-in-costume was missing, and any humor too, or any sense of coherence or importance. Liam Neeson has stated publicly that he never had a worse experience making a film than Phantom Menace, and thought Lucas was/is a terrible writer/director, which is true. And Alec Guinness was happy to be killed in the first film, because he didn’t want to ever return to the series.
Did Alec Guinness really say that? I wonder what made him sign on in the first place…
From Wikipedia:
His role as Obi-Wan Kenobi in the original Star Wars trilogy, beginning in 1977, brought him worldwide recognition by a new generation. Guinness agreed to take the part on the condition that he would not have to do publicity to promote the film. He was also one of the few cast members who believed that the film would be a boxoffice hit and negotiated a percentage deal that made him very wealthy in later life.
However, he was never happy with being identified with the part, and expressed great dismay at what he perceived to be the obsessive, out-of-touch-with-reality fan following the Star Wars trilogy attracted. Obi-Wan’s death was at his request, in order to limit his subsequent role in the series, as he couldn’t face saying “those bloody awful lines”. However, in the DVD commentary of Star Wars: A New Hope, Lucas mentions that Guinness wasn’t happy about the script re-write in which Obi-Wan is killed. He once said in an interview that he “shrivelled up” every time Star Wars was mentioned to him. However, despite his dislike of the films, fellow cast members Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, and Carrie Fisher (as well as director George Lucas) have always spoken highly of his courtesy and professionalism on and off the set of the films (including, reportedly, helping Ford find an apartment to live in during the film’s shooting in England), and did not let his evident dislike of the material show to his co-stars during filming. In fact, Lucas credited him with inspiring fellow cast and crew to work harder during filming, saying he was instrumental in helping to complete filming of the movies.
In his autobiography Blessings In Disguise he tells an imaginary interviewer “Blessed be Star Wars!” while in his final volume of autobiography A Postively Final Appearance he recounts grudgingly gives an autograph to a young fan who claimed to have watched Star Wars over a hundred times, on the condition that the fan promises to stop watching the film, because as Guinness put it “this is going to be an ill effect on your life.” The fan was stunned at first, but later thanked him. Guinness reportedly grew so tired of modern audiences seeming to remember him only for his role of Obi-Wan Kenobi that he would throw away the fan mail he received from Star Wars fans unopened.
Th problem for me with Minority report is that the ending is completely backward. I read the original Philip K. Dick short story just before the movie came out. I loved the story–it’s one of those classic sci-fi stories that makes you think. the ending flows logically from the rest of the story, but is still a bit of a surprise (mostly because by the time I figured out where the story was headed I wasn’t sure if the guy would choose to sacrifice himself or not). The movie was in some ways better than I expected (I’m not a huge Tom Cruise fan) but the ending is 180 degrees from the story. It’s very bland. I realize they changed the ending to make it more resonant with today’s culture, but the magic of exploring a rather interesting ethical dilemma is gone.
I voted for Star Wars because I loved all of episodes 4-6, including the ewoks, and Lucas ruined even those with his stupid new ending song and by including scenes that were edited out of the original moves for good reason!
I’m of the opinion that Dick’s novels usually have bad endings. So it’s hard to blame the Hollywood films that also have bad endings. Further the good Hollywood adaptations, like Bladerunner take extreme liberties with the films. (Actually, outside of Bladerunner has their been a good Dick film?)
I always thought Dick had some good ideas but wasn’t that great a writer.
I’m curious though as the movie Minority Report was based on was one of the books I’ve not read. How did it end?
As I said, I thought the film itself was fantastic for the first two acts. The third act is, in my opinion, amazingly bland and quite different from the tone of the rest of the film.
Total Recall was a Dick movie. What did you think of it, Clark?
As I said Dan, most Dick movies have bad endings. In some ways Total Recall was more in keeping with the silliness of some of Dick’s books. But it really wasn’t great science-fiction. But that has as much to do with the director as anyone.
Amen Dan (#41). I like story above all else, and the Matrix trilogy had a story line that kept me wanting to see all three of them repeatedly. I own all 3 and enjoy them. And to whoever it was that was confused by the ending of the third film– it’s about yin-yang survival. Very gnostic. Very oriental. Very cool.
The SW prequels – true, the eyes of wonder of a little kid might have had something to do with it, and I see my son now digging the prequels (not Sith, he’s not old enough yet) like I dug the originals. Weird. I’m trying to correct this so that his view of films isn’t skewed. Honestly, what little kid understands the inner workings of the taxation within a trade franchise and those of senate and judiciary branches of a republic?
I guess today’s kids are just more sophisticated than ours….