CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Trilogies : Falling Flat or A Magnificent Triumph
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Trilogies : Falling Flat or A Magnificent Triumph

post #1 of 28
11/26/07 at 2:43am
Thread Starter 
I've been watching the LOTR extended edition films, with each commentary, and then each bonus disc. I've seen all of this before, maybe even 2 or 3 times, but upon each viewing I'm completely blown away by the heart and the passion behind these films and how, at least for me, the story of Frodo and the Ring of Power seems to be more then just a fantasy / faerie tale, it's a spiritual story, a fable, almost a hidden history of the plight of man.

Okay, okay, that was a bit much, but honestly, these films continue to touch and shape me in strange ways which is a testament to Peter Jackson, and the rest of the hundreds of men and women who poured their lives into making these films.

Then there's the new star wars trilogy, a group of films, however much interesting to watch, void of the heart and that transcendent connection. I don't bring this up to say LOTR is better the Prequel Trilogy, that is NOT my intent. My intent here is to understand, why, when the story of Anakin's fall, something that could have been soo powerful, meaningful and legendary, ends up being 'just okay' without any sort of long lasting resonance.

If you own the prequels on dvd then I would imagine many of you have seen the films with the director commentary. What continues to fascinate me is that when listening to Lucas and company talk about these films, most everything is technical, they don't comment on the power of the story, meeting the actors, investing in character, rather, as aforementioned, it's about "comping this actor in here, changing the eye line there, splicing this take with another one, " etc...


I'm trying to understand why the prequel trilogy became an exercise in technology as opposed to an heartfelt story full of tangible passion. the worlds of middle earth and star wars aren't terribly different and yet, the latter has left a cold and distant taste in my mouth.

Am I alone?
Reply
post #2 of 28
11/26/07 at 3:07am
Oh good, we haven't had this conversation before.
Reply
post #3 of 28
11/26/07 at 3:15am
Really, the only trilogies in recent memory that stick the landing are the Bournes, the Oceans', and Back to the Future.
Reply
post #4 of 28
11/26/07 at 3:59am
I'd add INFERNAL AFFAIRS to that. The second one goes into all-out epic mode and is easily the best of the three, even though part one really has the best cast. The third one is mostly harmless - doesn't need to be there, but it doesn't hurt anything by being there, either. One might call it an epilogue to INFERNAL AFFAIRS that follows the massive flashback that is INFERNAL AFFAIRS II.
Reply
post #5 of 28
11/26/07 at 8:30am
Prater, it's because, at a basic level, nobody cares about the fall of Annakin Skywalker. Do you care how Chigurh became Chigurh? No. He is what he is, and that's all we need.
Reply
post #6 of 28
11/26/07 at 9:15am
Hello from the future. Can someone tell me what year it is - i think I've traveled back in time 18 months.
Reply
post #7 of 28
11/26/07 at 9:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu
Really, the only trilogies in recent memory that stick the landing are the Bournes, the Oceans', and Back to the Future.
But the Oceans have a weak second act. And BTTF III is "sticking the landing"? It's a charming little film but nowhere near the first one in quality.
Reply
post #8 of 28
11/26/07 at 10:58am
I'm a member of the Ocean's Twelve fan club, so that one's probably my favorite in the series. As for Back to the Future III, I think that it does a great job of telling its own story while still fitting in with the themes and tones of the rest of the series, plus, it brings everything to a satisfying conclusion in the last act. It doesn't suck, is what I'm saying.
Reply
post #9 of 28
11/26/07 at 11:08am
I too share your love for Ocean's 12. In fact, I like it the most of the three. If you don't consider LOTR a trilogy I can only think of the three you mentioned.
Reply
post #10 of 28
11/26/07 at 12:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark
Because Anakin was never a likable character in the first place. Hence, it wasn't a tragedy. It was more like Hannibal Rising or Rob Zombie's Halloween.
Or George Bush after 9/11. ZING!

I really think it boils down to this: George Lucas isn't a writer. He comes up with a premise, and that's about it. Anyway, there are some hokey ass-moments in LOTR too. Tying Arwen's fate to the ring was pretty insipid. And, if you've watched the bonus material, there were a lot of possible mis-steps that Jackson and Co. avoided. Like putting Arwen at Helm's Deep and casting Stuart Townsend as Aragorn. I think the difference is Jackson realized he was making mistakes and fixed them. Lucas hard-charged into his and didn't seem to care.

That being said, Ocean's totally pwns BTTF.
Reply
post #11 of 28
11/26/07 at 12:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu
It doesn't suck, is what I'm saying.
Well, I think a third film in a trilogy should do a little more than just not suck in order to stick the landing.

As for Sith, the problem wasn't so much that Anakin's fall was uninvolving, it's that it was surrouned by so much other junk that we just didn't care about. And that they introduced Anakin as far too young a character to give the audience a chance to see him as the conflicted young adult and buy into his slow turn. They wasted TPM and had to shoehorn everything into Clones, so the whole arc feels rushed.
Reply
post #12 of 28
11/26/07 at 1:06pm
Anakin was always meant to be some sort of great warrior - and be honest after viewing the prequels would you follow Anakin into battle?

Whereas Frodo and Co were everyday Joes who liked nothing more than to get shitfaced at the Green Dragon and were drawn into events. Like Luke from the OT he was an everyday Joe who got drawn into events.

Anakin was the golden child who had it all, ability, good looks and even got to pork Natalie Portman and he STILL managed to whinge about his lot in life.

The prequels didn't work because of reasons that Richard Dickson posted.

And also because Anakin was a cunt.
Reply
post #13 of 28
11/26/07 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis

And also because Anakin was a cunt.
NOT the most useful organ to be when living on Tattooine.
No wonder he was so irritable.
Reply
post #14 of 28
11/26/07 at 1:50pm
Back to the Future III doesn't have the script of the first or the completely out there zaniness of the third, but I think it's still a really fun western, first of all. You can really tell that Tom Wilson is having a fucking ball, for starters. ("What about Sunday!? Are we doin' anything on Sunday!?") Second, I think it has enough of the time-travel themes and traits (Clint Eastwood, the call-back to the bulletproof vest gag) of the first two that it still feels like part of the trilogy. I hate Mary Steenburgen, but that's just me. Finally, it completes the arc of Marty coming of age and learning to be a bigger man that began in the first film, which is an even bigger achievement when you consider that the first film wasn't intended to be part of a trilogy.

I think that's also part of the reason why I like the Ocean's and Bourne trilogies so much, and why their achievement at maintaining consistency is such an achievement. The films had sequel endings built in, but they weren't crafted with sequels in mind. At least in the case of Bourne, sure, you had the other books, but that was a troubled production -- people had counted it out. Ocean's was pretty much a sure thing, though.
Reply
post #15 of 28
11/26/07 at 1:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu
I hate Mary Steenburgen, but that's just me.
I don't hate her but I've always thought she looks like she smells of wee.

Same with Diane Wiest.
Reply
post #16 of 28
11/26/07 at 2:05pm
Yeah, but a large part of the first movie is about Marty learning to be confident in himself -- the Marty in the first half of the film never would have gotten on stage to play Johnny B. Good, for example. The chicken bullshit from Parts II and III are a continuation of that, about him coming to terms with his natural insecurity covered by cocky bravado. I think I'm trying too hard and should probably stop.
Reply
post #17 of 28
11/26/07 at 2:11pm
Why wouldn't he have gotten on stage?
Reply
post #18 of 28
11/26/07 at 2:15pm
It comes from that whole conversation with Jennifer about sending his tapes out, "What if I'm no good? What if they tell me to get lost?" Which is then, of course, reflected when his dad says the same thing to him and he winds up realizing that what Doc says -- "If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything" -- might be right.

That being said, there are other people who say that Marty doesn't change during the first Back to the Future, and George is the real protagonist, which you can make a case for. But really, I'm just spitballing here.
Reply
post #19 of 28
11/26/07 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu
I think I'm trying too hard and should probably stop.
Why? What are you? Chicken?
Reply
post #20 of 28
11/26/07 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark
Right. He did it out of a sense of responsibility, not personal longing. His first reaction was "Fuck no, Bilbo! Give that ring to someone else!"
Luke however was looking for adventure. He didn't have to fly into space the way Frodo had to ride to Mordor. Luke wanted to even before he saw Leia's message.
I thought the Baggins (pl?) were pre-disposed to yearn for un-Hobbit-ish adventure. Reason why the other citizens of the shire always looked at them suspiciously. First Bilbo, then Frodo.
Reply
post #21 of 28
11/26/07 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8
I thought the Baggins (pl?) were pre-disposed to yearn for un-Hobbit-ish adventure. Reason why the other citizens of the shire always looked at them suspiciously. First Bilbo, then Frodo.
You're right, but, in The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, Bilbo and Frodo are reluctant heroes. They have their respective adventures thrust upon them. It's only after the events of The Hobbit that Bilbo developes a taste for adventure.
Reply
post #22 of 28
11/26/07 at 2:30pm
First Ever Double Post... Hooray for Me!!!
Reply
post #23 of 28
11/26/07 at 2:55pm
Bilbo's "lust for adventure" was to see what was beyond the edges of the Shire maps, to visit the elves, to just wander the countryside and see what was there, which, for a hobbit, is like being Indiana Jones. Fighting orcs and dragons wasn't high on his list of priorities.
Reply
post #24 of 28
11/26/07 at 5:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark
Now if the sequels revolved around him travelling through time to bring vengeance down upon Huey Lewis, that would make sense.
Huey Lewis and/or the News have done nothing to warrant any person's vengeance. In fact, every act they've ever taken deserves every person's unbridled love and devotion. Or maybe you haven't heard of a little song called "Doing It All For My Baby"? If that's the case, well, I just feel sorry for you.
Reply
post #25 of 28
11/26/07 at 5:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli
If that's the case, well, I just feel sorry for you.
Don't sweat it Mattioli... it's hip to be square (AKA chic to be geek).
Reply
post #26 of 28
11/26/07 at 6:35pm
After viewing BTTF when I was 11 in 1985 I went out and bought all of the Huey Lewis back catalogue and did so for years after. While others in my class were staring on Guns N Roses and Def Lepard I was learning all about The Power of Love.
Reply
post #27 of 28
11/26/07 at 7:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
Bilbo's "lust for adventure" was to see what was beyond the edges of the Shire maps, to visit the elves, to just wander the countryside and see what was there, which, for a hobbit, is like being Indiana Jones. Fighting orcs and dragons wasn't high on his list of priorities.
It's like Sam: "We're going to see the elves!"

None of them intended to sacrifice their lives for the cause, but all of them ended up willing to do so.

Luke was more willing to fight for the cause, but he was still very naive and more of a teenager with wanderlust and a desire to be a hero without really knowing what he was getting into.
Reply
post #28 of 28
9/27/11 at 11:24am

LOTR is the better trilogy than the prequels but Star Wars is better than LOTR.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Trilogies : Falling Flat or A Magnificent Triumph