'The Hobbit' trilogy vs. the 'Matrix' sequels vs. the 'Star Wars' prequels

I don't like the Matrix sequels (I'm only so-so on the first Matrix film).

I have no desire to watch the Hobbit's movie trilogy (even though I do LOVE the original book--which is probably why I have no desire to see the films lol).

And....I actually really, really like the Star Wars prequels....

 

I am a Star Wars geek. and I love all 6 movies (not a fan of Disney Star Wars, now Star Wars is just getting worse and worse, the only Disney have made that I kind of like is Rogue One, and that is because Darth Vader was badass in that movie).

Matrix, I am only a fan of the first one, because it was something very unique kind of movie back then, and the ones made after is not really that good.

Hobbit, I am not a fan of Lord Of The Rings, it is way to silly in my opinion. I think I have only seen the first Hobbit movie, once, when it was on TV when it was kind of new, and I did not watch it with 100% focus. I have seen all the Lord Of The Rings movies tho, but as I said, I find them way to silly...

 

Yeah, I refuse to watch the "Disney" Star Wars movies (I keep waiting for the Mouse Ears to show up somewhere lol). I only acknowledge the first six movies.

The movies do not do the books justice. My dad is a HUGE fan of the books and was absolutely disgusted with the films. I saw the films (LOTR) before reading the books but now understand why he didn't like the movies. I am more of the fan of the Hobbit (book), and I don't want my vision of the book ruined by Hollywood's interpretation lol.

 

I have heard tho, that it is rumors that Lucas will work with their next Star Wars. Not sure if its true or not...

Well I do not read books, the only thing I read is song lyrics on my vinyl records.

 

Agree on all the cool little Matrix features. The Keymaker...

The Animatrix is also very worth checking out.

 

I can watch sections of the Star Wars prequels,never sit thru a whole one of them.
I will never watch the matrix sequels in part or whole again.
I like the Smaug parts of the second Hobbit movie but the video game/over the top action of the rest makes my eyes roll far too much.As others said 1 three hour movie could have been great.

 

This is a tough question. Each of the trilogies is a victim of the best material coming first. In the case of the star wars prequels it was the initial trilogy. In the case of the Matrix it was the first film, that was a truly inspirational effort. In the case of The Hobbit, the trilogy is a total fail in comparison to the book. For example, the passages of the book describing how the dwarves escaped in wine barrells from the elves and floated down the river was downright poetic and relaxing to read. How Peter Jackson got from that to the video-game treatment of dwarves flying around in barrells and killing orcs on the shore along with Legolas firing arrows at point-blank range and using the dwarves heads as stepping stones, I'll never understand. Gratuitous violence is one thing--I don't mind it in movies--but that was ridiculous. For just mindless entertainment and killing time, I think The Hobbit trilogy probably wins, though. I don't think I could stomach the Star Wars prequels or Matrix 2 and 3 ever again.

 

The Hobbit? "Franchise original sin", that's all I'll say.

 

The Matrix sequels - soooooo, onto these very divisive films; I was well on my way to writing a pretty comprehensive and (frankly too long-winded) review/analysis until I just thought "feck this!" and copy-pasted another post on these films that I wrote on another website back in 2014, with some slight updates and amendments.

Deep breath, here we go...

When asking the question as to how the Wachowski's got it so right in the original film and arguably got it so wrong on so many levels in the sequels, one has to understand the context of the two differing development periods of the 1999 film and the sequels.

The original film is such a near-perfect film that is remarkably tight and concise with not a shot, line, or scene wasted because the Wachowski's had time to fully develop and flesh out their ideas for it, they went through a full seventeen drafts of the script to get the eventual draft used during production, plus they had the entire film storyboarded out in advance down to the last shot. It's also worth mentioning that the Wachowski's original intent was to make the film more open-ended to essentially lead into the sequels they hoped to make and also to make the film much more ambiguous as to why the Machines keep humans in the Matrix, but Warner Bros nixed both notions, insisting on both the film being more conclusive in it's ending as well as insisting that the film spell out the reason for Machines keeping humans in the artificial simulation that is the Matrix.

By contrast, the sequels' development period was considerably shorter, with only two years between the release of the first film and cameras rolling on the sequels; that's two years to not only write and prep two hugely complicated movies, but also to develop (and in some instances, actually write) the Animatrix shorts, the video game, and the comic books, in addition to planning out the subsequent multi-player online game, spreading their creative focus much too thin in the process. In addition to the time factor, the Wachowski's were given complete creative control over every aspect of the whole sequels enterprise with a culture of total deference aiding and abetting their every whim, no matter how misguided (hello Zion rave!), to put it in a simple soundbite, the problem with the sequels was too much money, too much power, too much of everything, except of course too little restraint... and the results spoke for themselves.

The sequels have some artistic merit and some great scenes, do we just summarily dismiss them because they fail to match the original film (and that's putting it politely)? Reloaded is the more troublesome of the two films, it clearly needs some major tightening up in the editing (the aforementioned Zion rave, the orgasmo-cake, and the bathroom kiss scenes should all been cut wholesale from the film), and the story should not have been diffused across spin-off mediums like the video game (although the genuinely impressive Final Flight of the Osiris animated short is a legitimate prologue), whilst editor Zach Staenberg has admitted that whole shots had to be summarily dropped from Revolutions because they weren't able to finish them on time prior to the release date, although why they didn't finish them and add them for the subsequent DVD release is anyone's guess.

I have long held the firm and unshakeable opinion that making two sequels was a major problem for those films from the outset; whatever other flaws the sequels had in terms of story, characters, etc, had the Wachowski's taken that (admittedly well-developed and intriguing) sequel storyline and told it in a tight, concise, single three-hour film without all the other useless multi-media, cross-platform detritus (the aforementioned ...Osiris notwithstanding), it would have went a long, long way to improving that whole enterprise immeasurably. There wasn't enough substance to that sequel storyline for four-and-a-half hours of screen time spread over two films, there simply wasn't.

I will add one more thing though; after watching Marvel's Doctor Strange, I turned to the wifey and literally exclaimed "that's what the Matrix sequels should have been like!!!"... and I stand by that; the whole reality-bending nature of that MCU film was exactly what many people, myself included, thought the Matrix sequels would be like back in the day... instead, we got a cringe-worthy rave scene, orgasm-inducing pastry, and fight scenes that went on for weeks, long after the point and impact was passed... oh well, c'est la vie.

In closing, the first film is nigh-on flawless whilst the sequels are very, very flawed indeed - I literally have no desire nor inclination to ever watch them again - ultimately, it's up to the audience to choose whether to watch them as a collective whole or just stick with the original film; in the final analysis, it all comes down to choice... essentially mirroring the over-arching theme of the entire trilogy, how ironic!

Star Wars prequels up next... oh boy...

 

I agree with this. I was a huge LOTR dork for a while (that has since almost completely passed) I absorbed it. But I didn't like the first Hobbit. And I hated the second. Didn't bother with the third.

 

I thought they all were equally terrible.

 

Star Wars prequels - okay, never let it be said I don't finish what I started, and as we can expect the publicity bandwagon for the upcoming Episode IX to start ramping up in the coming months, I thought I'd get this thing done and finally dusted. Quite honestly, these films have been so extensively and endlessly analyzed, reviewed, picked over, and commented upon - by myself and others, here and elsewhere - that there's not a lot more to be said about them, so I'll err on the side of brevity as much as I can and be as brief as possible.

I think it's fair to say that never before or indeed since has there been a set of films so intensely anticipated as these, no set of films that were almost mythical in stature years before they were even planned much less actually shot and released, and no set of films that have been received seemingly with such profound disappointment as these... you could almost hear the air escaping from the pre-release excitement bubble when people actually saw The Phantom Menace... and no wonder; you'd be hard-pressed to find a major tentpole release so lazily and incompetently executed as that film, it's nigh-on unwatchable by humans... but how did it, how could it, have possibly come to THAT???

The root question lies in whether George Lucas should have even bothered with the prequels, were they even strictly necessary in the first place? Well the short answer is no, they weren't, not in the strictest sense; the OT gave us all the important info we needed on that backstory to understand the dramatic context and character development that unfolded over those three films. But clearly Lucas was intrigued by the backstory, and once The Empire Strikes Back was designated and released as Episode V, the dye was cast, the course was charted, and there was no going back. Despite the fact of how they ultimately turned out, and indeed the question of just how necessary they were to begin with, cinema is - when distilled to it's basic constituent element - about telling a story... and in the SW prequels, you had a potentially DYNAMITE story... a story of grand visual sweep that the OT could only have dreamed of; a story of heartbreaking emotional intimacy as a good and noble man ultimately becomes the servant of the embodiment of evil, both betraying and losing everything and everyone dear to him in the process; and a story of compelling political intrigue as a once-great confederation loses it's moral bearings, slides into war and ruination, and is ultimately subsumed by a fascistic and murderous regime... how could anyone screw up such a premise as that, especially when that person had complete artistic and financial independence, and beholden to no corporate interest except his own vivid imagination?

Well, we all know the answer to that by now; in short, Lucas decided that writing those films on the fly instead of taking a solid year or so to develop and write the basic trilogy chronological story arc outline in advance was the best way to handle them, and that decision was a major factor from the outset in how those films turned out... writing something on the go is all well and good for a story that doesn't have a predetermined end-point and/or isn't an extension of a larger story that already established certain plot points and character beats for the story you're about to tell, but the prequel backstory was just such a story and badly needed a careful and concise mapping out beforehand... to make sure the chronology lined up with the OT, and to make sure it worked in it's own right; as individual films, as an overall trilogy, and as essentially the 'other half' of an epic six-film saga that neatly and seamlessly dovetailed into the aforementioned OT... alas, the fact that Lucas didn't take this more prudent route planted the poisonous tree and all fruit that subsequently was bore off it thereafter.

Another major factor was Lucas' decision to write the screenplay and direct those films himself... despite the fact he - by his own admission - was not good with either!!! People have rightly pointed out that he did indeed approach other writers and directors to handle these areas for the prequels but was ultimately turned down... and to that, I would counter-argue; just how many people did he approach??? We know that writers Larry Kasdan and Frank Darabont declined to get involved; and we know that the likes of Ron Howard, Robert Zemeckis, and even British theater director David Hare all declined to direct... but really, how many other talented and capable writers/directors would have gladly jumped at such a chance, even with Lucas having the last word on creative matters; isn't that more collaborative partnership what happened on the Young Indy Chronicles television series, and they not only turned out very well indeed, but production on them was largely a smooth affair? Did Lucas secretly want to write and direct them himself from the outset, but the rejection from a few name talent that were approached ultimately gave him cover to 'go it alone' as it were, who knows? Honestly, it would have been a wiser decision if Lucas approached directors from the television field to handle directing duties on those films; none of them were going to be shot over five or six months anyway, principle photography on each of the three prequel installments lasted a mere 60 days respectively, and in that instance, a director who can work fast and produce good work under the creative auspices of a 'showrunner' is exactly what those films required... someone like Rob Bowman, for example, would have been perfect for the darker Episode III. But again, Lucas took a different path (instead of employing an outside screenwriter(s) to develop his outlines into a concise and compelling script and an outside director(s) to work with actors and get the dynamic shots required for editing); one that he knew reflected and exacerbated his weakest artistic points, and the films suffered accordingly.

The third and final factor that ultimately contributed to those films not reaching their potential was Lucas' embracing of the emerging digital technology, both for production and post-production. Yes, it's true that without that same digital technology, he couldn't have made those films the way he envisioned, but he could have been a lot more judicious in his overall use thereof. Computer-generated visual effects technology gave Lucas the opportunity to pull off scenes and shots he could only have dreamed of before but was unable to do so, but utilizing that CGI to such an extent as he did robbed the films of the tactile, tangible aesthetic that the OT had in spades. The other point of contention was the prototype digital cameras used in Episodes II and III; these cameras may have been cutting-edge tech at the time and made production easier and even a little more cost-effective, but they gave the latter two Episodes a cold, sterile, detached aesthetic compared to even Episode I which at least looked and felt almost tactile and real at times being as it was shot on 35mm film, had more extensive use of miniatures and actual sets and was photo-chemically timed so looked more natural in the final grading than it's digitally-timed/graded two successors.

Whatever you're opinion of them, the last two Disney-produced SW Episode films employed more miniatures/sets, were shot on traditional 35mm film, took about five or six months to shoot overall, and looked sumptuous in comparison to the prequels... what a pity the latter didn't take the same approach as the former (although ironically, whilst the Sequels had the superior production values but no story of any substance to tell, the Prequels had arguably lesser comparative production values but a dynamite story of actual substance to tell) had they done so, we would have got better films overall, alas.

Oh jeez, so much for brevity, time to wrap this thing up quickly... I could elucidate further on other matter relating to the prequels - like how everyone, except Ian McDiarmid, acts like they're stoned and/or stilted mannequins, the complete lack of any chemistry between them, the largely weak and forgettable design-work compared to the still-iconic designs of the OT, the dull and lifeless cinematography, or how Lucas seemingly made little to no effort to actually ensure that events/characters didn't directly contradict what he had already established in the OT - but time, space, and frankly patience has run out, so I'll wrap it up thus;

The SW prequels had a compelling story to tell and could have been anywhere between solidly good at least and genuinely great at most had some care, precision, and prudent planning went into their initial development; their filming had been conducted on the principle of what looks the best for them not what new technology they could proudly pioneer and fly the flag for (see also Peter Jackson and The Hobbit trilogy on this same point); had they been written to weave more seamlessly into the OT; and had outside screenwriters and directors been employed to shore up areas in which Lucas himself was weakest on.

But none of that happened and we got the films we got; I want to both watch and like the prequels, but doing so just feels like I'm floating in deep space; it's all a total vacuum for the most part, with no life or flair or anything relating to actual human emotions... despite the teeming onscreen visual imagery - "it's so dense!!!" - it's almost like a robot made them rather than an actual flesh-and-blood human being!!! They do have some great setpiece sequences throughout, but a good-to-great film is more than just spectacle, and considering the immense dramatic potential of that story, and the precipitous fall between what was expected of them compared to what was ultimately delivered by them, makes it hard to argue with the harsh criticism they received upon release, and why I now see the OT not as part of the story but the whole story; a self-contained, three-act story that ultimately needs no further elaboration, be it prequel or sequel.

What it does need, however, is a nice remastering and re-release of the original theatrical versions, but I've beat the dead horse on that one already here and the poor mare has no flesh left on it's long-deceased bones, so I'll say adieu and auf wiedersehen now whilst I can.

As Captain Kirk once memorably quipped; "it's been... fun".