# Lord of the Rings or Matrix (trilogy)



## MrFrodo (Dec 1, 2003)

...as there seem to be other threads on this topic..why not mention the matrix????

Which do you prefer???

lord of the rings for me.........


----------



## Roilya (Dec 1, 2003)

Lord of the rings!!! sure the matrix movies are ok, but how many times can u show neo beating on agents. the fight scenes get old real quick and the story line sucks.


----------



## Freawine (Dec 1, 2003)

_The Matrix_, without any doubt at all!!

And if one's critic of the movie is only based on how many times there are fight scenes with agents, then you missed the whole point. How many movies do you know that have 14 philosophy articles in its official site? _The Matrix_ is not _just_ another action movie, and the reason with so many people dislike it is because they usually don't try to get things beyond the fight and love scenes. I disagree that the story line sucks: rather it is a complex one that deals with topics that human race deals with for thousands of years. It takes some effort, time, pacience and a good amount of readings to go as deep as the movie allows, so I'm not suprised that some find it boring, incoherent, etc.

Ever considered Buddhist and Gnostic philosophy? Plato? Pre-Christian religions? The Bible? Modern and contemporary western philosophy? Centuires and centuries old questions such as free will _versus_ Fate (Cfr. Erasmus and Luther in the 16 century, for instance)? Human nature as one of desire that acts in regard to a project/wish (St. Augustine would have something to say about it)? All of these things are in any of the three movies of _The Matrix_ and they produce far, far reaching questions.

And there's also the huge amount of detail that can go equally far. For instance, ever thought about the name of the ships? The _Hammer_, as in _Mjollnir_, the Hammer of Thor, god of thunder; the _Logos_, Greek word for reason, discourse and that in latter times was interpreted by Christian philosophers as being the Divine Word, hence Christ would the Incarnated _Logos_; the Architect and the Oracle, Father and Mother of the Matrix, each one with it's own agenda and conflicting plans using us like pawns to make their moves and reach their goals, a story told again and again in several ancient mythologies: Zeus _versus_ Hera, Frigg _versus_ Odin... Both in the first and second movies, the details around the Oracle that are a direct reference to ancient cultures and their way of thinking: the blind man at the entrance of the building, the sentence _Know thy self_ that was inscribed in the temple of Apollo at Delphi, the ravens in the second movie. Even Neo's often unexpressive look can be found in one of the influences of the movie: Buddhism. Ever considered how the face of a Buddha is usually represented?

All this makes _The Matrix_ simply prodigious: it's a huge intelectual challenge, full of material from an enormous range of origins, it forces you to think and investigate to get the whole picture, it's food for the mind. Plus, you get a bonus of a great soundtrack and action scenes to go with the brain activity.  

Then there's PJ _Lord of the Rings_ that lacks the mythological references and context that Tolkien gave it, character and plot coherence and construction, complexity in themes and presentation (meaning, no intelectual challenge), no deep notions and content as in _The Matrix_ and it's oversimplified. Not surprising as PJ was constantly worried with it's audience's ability to understand almost every aspect of the story: he lacked courage or even a small bit of trust, even in himself. The result is a poor and low quality movie.

Nope, _The Lord of the Rings_ is hardly worth the money and time to me, unless I want to get a great fireworks show, but special effects alone don't make a good movie, hence PJ's can never go as deep and far as _The Matrix_ does.


----------



## Roilya (Dec 1, 2003)

ok if the creators of the matrix want to go so deep in the story, then why did they make the special effects(which is the only reason why the movie was a hit) and everything else overshadow the actual storyline. Also if the creator wanted to go deeper into the rabbit hole, why didnt he make a book before the movie? that would of probaly made more sense. because that was the sorriest excuse for a movie ive ever seen, even star wars episode 1 is better than the matrix trilogy!


----------



## FoolOfATook (Dec 3, 2003)

Huzzah for philosophy, _Matrix_ style!

The deep, philisophical discussion at the end of the second film was the funniest thing filmed this year.

There's absolutely no question in my mind. Give me the depth and beauty of Middle-earth over the adventures of Neo and Morpheus anyday.

Hell, give me just _The Hobbit_ in trade for the entire saga of _The Matrix[/] and I'll be ripping you off._


----------



## Lord of Ry'leh (Dec 4, 2003)

I can't really say I prefer one over the other. While they are both epic stories dealing with ordinary people who get swept up into extraordinary events, the execution of each is different. Lord of the Rings is a vast sweeping high fantasy story with a super in-depth background that sets the stage for everything that is happening. In the Matrix, we are kept in the dark for a lot of the details of the movie. This is done on purpose, and watching out for little hints at various questions is part of what makes them great movies.

As for why there wasn't a Matrix novel and why their are tons of fight scenes and exquisite special effects, that is simple. First of all, the Wachowski (sp?) brothers are filmmakers, not novelists. They make movies, not books. As for the special effects, it is just part of the massive blend that the movie contains. It also gives something to appeal to another part of the audience, maybe those who don't care about the philosophical questions the movie raises and just went to see it for the nicely coreographed fight scenes. Even if the movies didn't have such great special effects, there would still be a loyal cult following.

And lastly, if you think Episode 1 was better than the Matrix films...well, I don't know what Episode 1 you saw but I wish I had seen it too.


----------



## Freawine (Dec 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Roilya _
> *ok if the creators of the matrix want to go so deep in the story, then why did they make the special effects(which is the only reason why the movie was a hit) and everything else overshadow the actual storyline.*



It overshadowed it? Don't think so! If to some it did than it was people's unability to see beyond the superficial appearance that led to it, maybe because they only went there for the fireworks, maybe because they never tried going down, down the rabbit-hole. Besides, I don't see how deep content should prevent the usage of great special effects: for one thing it's a bonus, but it's also a matter of making you go beyond it, i.e., another intelectual challenge, more food for the mind. Perhaps people are used to be spoon-fed and everything that is not the content of the movie should be removed: a bad habbit, I'm affraid, one that led to the twisted production that was suppoed to be an adaptation of Tolkien's work.

Lots of people seem to love PJ's _Lord of the Rings_, but I have often wonder why: is it because they analysed the story line and it's (lack of) coherence, or is it because they enjoy seeing on the movie screen those places where Tolkien's epic takes place, even if PJ's version has little if anything to do with the original? They seem to love more the appearances - speacial effects, sight-seeing, etc. - than the character's personality, their role, the story's themes, contents, etc.: again, they seem to prefer to watch Middle-Earth in appearance than to go deep into it's story; they prefer fireworks to an analysis of the story's details. 



> *Also if the creator wanted to go deeper into the rabbit hole, why didnt he make a book before the movie? that would of probaly made more sense.*



Why? Why should only a book have all the content and dept _The Matrix_ has? Should movies be simpler and books more complicated? Perhaps PJ thought something of the kind and thus gave the poor result his _Lord of the Rings_ is.


----------



## Freawine (Dec 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lord of Ry'leh _
> *happening. In the Matrix, we are kept in the dark for a lot of the details of the movie. This is done on purpose, and watching out for little hints at various questions is part of what makes them great movies.*



To spread data through three different sources - the movies, _Animatrix_ and the pc game - was something that I personally enjoyed: it's like working on a huge puzzle, and one filled with such a huge amount of sources and influences.



> *As for the special effects, it is just part of the massive blend that the movie contains. It also gives something to appeal to another part of the audience, maybe those who don't care about the philosophical questions the movie raises and just went to see it for the nicely coreographed fight scenes.*



Which is another reason why _The Matrix_ is such a great triology: it has the ability to appeal to different types of persons with different areas of interest. PJ's _Lord of the Rings_, on the other hand, was stripped of much of the mythological, dept, character construction and plot complexity Tolkien gave to the original story, simply because we - the audience - were judge as being unable to understand anything a bit more complex. So either you enjoy the fireworks or you have nothing to feed your mind.


----------



## FoolOfATook (Dec 5, 2003)

> Perhaps people are used to be spoon-fed and everything that is not the content of the movie should be removed:



But I thought that there was no spoon... 



> Perhaps PJ thought something of the kind and thus gave the poor result his Lord of the Rings is.



Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Academy Awards:
Best Cinematography
Best Effects, Visual Effects
Best Makeup
Best Music, Original Score

Academy Awards Nominations:
Best Supporting Actor
Best Art Direction-Set Direction
Best Costume Design
Best Editing
Best Music, Song
Best Sound
Best Screenplay, Adapted Material
Best Director
Best Picture

British Academy Film Awards:
Audience Award
Best Achievement In Visual Special Effects
Best Makeup/Hair
David Lean Award For Direction
Best Film

British Academy Film Awards Nominations:
Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Editing
Best Performance By An Actor In A Leading Role
Best Production Design
Best Sound
Best Screenplay, Adapted

Directors' Guild of America Nomination:
Best Director

Golden Globe Nominations:
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Director
Best Picture- Drama

Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award:
Best Music Song

MTV Movie Awards:
Breakthrough Male Performance
Best Movie

MTV Movie Awards Nominations:
Best Action Sequence
Best Fight
Best Male Performance
Best Villain

National Board of Review Awards:
Best Production Design/Art Design
Best Supporting Actress
Special Achievement Award

Peoples' Choice Awards:
Favorite Dramatic Motion Picture
Favorite Motion Picture

Screen Actors' Guild Awards:
Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role

Screen Actors' Guild Awards Nominations:
Outstanding Performance by the Cast of a Theatrical Motion Picture

American Film Institute Awards:
AFI Digital Effects Artist of the Year
AFI Production Designer of the Year
AFI Movie Of The Year

American Film Institute Awards Nomination:
AFI Composer Of The Year

Internet Movie Database User Rating: 8.8 (8th highest of all films)

Total Worldwide Box Office: $860,200,000 (7th highest of all time)

This is just a sampling of the general opinion of the film. You'll notice that the film seems to be appreciated and respected by just about any definition you choose to adopt. By any rate, these facts seem to indicate that the film was not, according to the vast majority of the general public, as well as by a significant portion of what one might dub the film inteligentsia. Not what I'd call a "poor result".

Peter Jackson's films are true epics, with real depth and heart, and special effects that go far beyond a few trick gimmicks done ad nauseaum tied to an inane, pretentious pseudophilosophy.


----------



## Roilya (Dec 5, 2003)

The Matrix is a sorry attempt of an epic tale, that makes no sense at all. 

Morpheus: Come on down the rabbit hole Neo.

Neo: ok dude, the aliens are coming save our home dude.

Agent smith: i will destroy u Neo.

Neo: no u wont i am the one.*flys around like superman*


----------



## Freawine (Dec 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by FoolOfATook _
> *This is just a sampling of the general opinion of the film. You'll notice that the film seems to be appreciated and respected by just about any definition you choose to adopt. By any rate, these facts seem to indicate that the film was not, according to the vast majority of the general public, as well as by a significant portion of what one might dub the film inteligentsia. Not what I'd call a "poor result".*



It has already been pointed out in this forum how huge general appeal fails to be a proof of a movie's quality: if most people's standarts are low or don't consider a full range of aspects, either because they don't get it or simply don't care, don't expect them to indicate you a good production. As for the _film inteligentsia_, I have read so many things by members of that group that I wonder how many of them know _The Lord of the Rings_, have read it and have considered, analysed and thought about PJ's story and arguments in detail. At one time I found in a cinema maganize a reference to _The Two Towers_ as highly faithful to Tolkien's work and that Helm's Deep was even better than in the original story: poor, if not very poor criteria from the _film inteligentsia_, I'm affraid, so why should I consider most awards as a sign of quality when they seem to lack the basis to avaluate certain things? It seems that they, like the general audience, are more into the appearance than into content.



> *Peter Jackson's films are true epics, with real depth and heart, and special effects that go far beyond a few trick gimmicks done ad nauseaum tied to an inane, pretentious pseudophilosophy. *



I doubt very much that PJ's story has any real depth: he stripped the story of most of it's mythological references, Tolkien's ideas and concepts, character's personality and plot complexity. It's often a simplistic movie, not to mention one that is full of contradictions, which is not exactly a surprise, since the movie script kept being changed from night to day without any thinking on the consequences of those fast changes on Tolkien's careful and detailled construction.

And if you consider that _The Matrix_ is full of "_pretentious pseudophilosophy_" then allow me to ask if you have ever read anything by or about Plato, Descartes, Dancy, Putnam, Ancient Greek Religion, History of Religions, etc.. If what the Wachowski did is pseudophilosophy than that's what the authors I mentioned did as well. If you fail to grasp it, don't get it or simply haven't heard of such things than don't go around saying what you did: you'll start sounding like those members of the "_film inteligentsia_" that comment on Tolkien's work and PJ's version of it without reading and studying the first for a start. As Ludwig Wittgenstein would say, on what you don't know it is better to remain silent.


----------



## Freawine (Dec 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Roilya _
> *The Matrix is a sorry attempt of an epic tale, that makes no sense at all. *



If you missed the whole point, than the problem lies in you, not the movie. It *is* an epic to it's full extent: it takes a tradicional pattern that can be found in several mythologies and world religions, makes use of elements and themes that are thousands of years old, be it in myth, ritual or philosophy and blends it with a modern approach. It had the ability to bring to us questions that our ancestors struggled with, matters that were part of their lives and that have something to say on who we are, our nature as human beings, our place in the Cosmos. Most people prefer not to think about such things: don't know, don't care, too much work, not easy enough, not in the mood, easy to consume is better. Not surprising that _The Matrix_ has low general appeal: if most see it by it's action scenes and superficial plot line - as your example shows - than it's only natural that you'll be bored by it even before the second movie ends. The key is to go down the rabbit hole, not to simply look at it, but I suppose some prefer to simply watch the movie, not to think much about it or what it presents, let alone open a mythology or philosophy dictionary to investigate A or B (as I and several others did), in order to grasp it's content to a greater extent.

In several ways, Tolkien also did what the Wachowski: he recovered long forgotten myths and elements and brought them to most of us through his writings; PJ has the unfornate ability to strip the _Lord of the Rings_ from most of those things and replace them with more modern and easy going versions that stripped some of the characters of their unic personality and role.


----------



## Paul (Dec 11, 2003)

*Lotr rockS*

Lord of the rings has alot more feeling than the matrix and also so much history and depth. The author created an entire world and a language! truly a great work


----------



## MrFrodo (Dec 12, 2003)

> several ways, Tolkien also did what the Wachowski:



I think you should change that to The Wachowski attempted adn failed


----------



## Roilya (Dec 12, 2003)

lol, good one mr frodo. and what about the Matrixs characters? come on you cant an all powerfull "one", that doesnt make the story fun. and smith guy please, thats ridiculus "im going to make like 50 others of me" yeah right. thats retarded.


----------



## celebdraug (Dec 12, 2003)

I really dint like the 2nd Matrix!


> "im going to make like 50 others of me" yeah right. thats retarded.


 That was like so stupid and cheesy! It was too confusing!


----------



## Gandalf White (Dec 12, 2003)

Roilya, I haven't seen the Matrix movies, and from what I read you don't appear to have viewed them either. You're completely unable to come up with an argument, resorting to merely bashing them. Can you not simply just say (a) I don't like the story line, or (b) I don't understand the story line? 

From what I hear, in Matrix we live in a simulated (?) world, and Agent Smith is a program who can "copy and paste" himself...


----------



## Freawine (Dec 12, 2003)

Allow me to have the pleasure of helping you, Oh Gandalf, oh Maia.   

_The Matrix_ follows the same principle as other movies have - such as _Dark City_ - and takes several steps further in more than one way. It's philosophical basis can be found in several ancient, modern and contemporary authors who dabbled on the question of what is reality, truth and freedom. Plus, _The Matrix_ adds an enormous abundance of details and direct references to pre-Christian and Christian, Buddhist and Gnostic mythology and religion that can be found in any of the three movies, be it in the name of the ships, characters, key sentences, details in the background, small moments, etc. 

Perhaps one of the most relevant cultural references is Plato's Allegory of the Cave, in which the Greek philosopher produces an analysis of how what we usually take as being true is nothing more than an illusion, shadows reflected on the wall of the cave where we lie as prisioners. It is only when one manages to get free from the chains that strain us that he moves towards the exterior and see things as they trully are, contemplating the sun light. Such escalade is difficult, especially to his eyes, as they have been used to the darkness of the cave. When one returns from the outside he tries to tell the others what he saw, and they may believe him or not, they may scorn and question him, and some may find it better to remain a prisioner.

In _The Matrix_ we are told that the world that we take as real is no more than a computer generated dreamworld created by the machines in order to extract the small amount of electricity we have in our body from us and feed them. In the past, humans and machines fought a global war and in the procces we destroyed the sky in order to prevent the sun from reaching the surface, as the machine's main source of power was solar. When they won the war they turned to the surviving humans and used them to produce their so much needed energy. The idea was to feed our mind in order to keep us in control and, thus, feed on us. In pratical terms, we would be no more than bateries, a methapor used at one point by the character Morpheus (a name from Greek mythology) in the first movie. He also asks what is reality: if it is no more than what one feels, hears, smells, if it is only what your senses tell you than reality is no more than electrical impulses transmited to your brain, which is how we are kept on the Matrix without ever suspecting it, like those inside the Cave, looking to the shadows. Like Plato, Morpheus questioned the ability of the senses to give us the truth, and as in Plato, the rebels, those that fight against the machines, are those that have been set free from the Matrix and now fight against it, trying to free others as well: they came out of the cave, seen the truth and now strive to reveal it to others.

All this is in a very modern context, since it is highly computer related and at several points one does need to have some digital knowledge in order to grasp some parts of the story. It is also an epic at the level of many others, far older, as it makes use of several elements and plot sequences that traditional and ancient myths, religious narratives and tales do; in some sense it does the same Tolkien did: it takes those elements and brings them to a modern audience, creating something new using the old. See what happens to Neo, for instance.

The human resistance has been going on for 100 years, and at one point the Oracle foretells the coming of the Saviour, the One, He who will have the ability to change the Matrix as he wishes and bring peace. Morpheus is told by the Oracle that he will find the One, and he believes such person is a man named Anderson, who goes by the nickname of Neo (an anagram of One, but also of Eon, a cosmic cycle). Eventually they manage to bring him out of the cg dreamworld and reveal him the truth which, as one does with the sunlight when in the dark too long, he finds hard to accept, to believe in. When he finally does, he begins his training, learning how the Matrix works and how it's rules - such as gravity - are no more than computer rules, and as such can be broken or bent, if your mind allows it. Latter he himself consults the Oracle, which tells him that he is not the One: he was already finding it hard to believe, let alone now. Meanwhile the crew of Morpheus' ship, Neo included, are betrayed by one of it's members who wishes to return to the dreamworld, an example of what can happen when people are not ready to know the truth - or the sunlight, as in Plato - or how deep the chains of _Samsara_, to use Buddhist terminology, can strain us, how strong illusion can be. Morpheus is captured but Neo decides to go back and save him. In the proccess, he faces Mr. Smith, one of the agents - programs created to watch the Matrix - and eventually begins to believe that he might have something special. He ends up being killed by Smith but miraculously returns to life by the gift of love from Trinitty, one of the crew members: when he does, he is no longer Mr. Anderson, but fully Neo, the One. He sees things as they are - computer data - and is able to shape the Matrix as he wishes: stop bullets, fly, etc., the bending of rules of the illusionary world. He deletes Mr. Smith, or thinks he does.

In the second movie the agent is back, but no longer as a program part of the Matrix, rather as more of a virus, with the same abilities as Neo, plus the one of copying himself _ad infinitum_. In _Reloaded_, Neo's learning and development continue as he faces other questions concerning the nature of the One, the history of the Matrix and whether or not he has free will or is the result of an already destined chain of events, a theme that has followed our ancestors for thousands of years (Cfr., for instance, Greek and Norse for pre-Christian religious beliefs and the debate of Erasmus and Luther in the first half of the 16th century for Christian philosophy). We are told that the last human city, the craddle of the resistance, Zion, will be attacked by an army of 250 thousand machines and Morpheus tries to prevent it by helping Neo reach the Source, the heart of the Matrix. He eventually reaches it and there he meets it's creator and many things are revealed. He leaves the Source and returns to the Matrix where he saves Trinitty's life (the closing of a cycle). In the end we find out that Neo has new abilities.

In _Revolutions_ we reach the final chapter of the epic: Neo has to take the final steps and Zion is attacked. Neo, the Saviour, has reached the last stage of his mission and will end up sacrificing himself fighting against his alter-ego, Mr. Smith. Peace comes and we have an at least half happy ending.

All this follows a very traditional pattern of epic saviours and heroes: we have a large scale war whose end is foretold to come with a hero, who first awakes (leaves the Matrix), then goes through a learning process and finally reaches a turning point after consulting the Oracle himself and facing a challenge in which he dies and is brought back to life by a higher power (in this case, love). It is an initiation proccess in which the chosen one has to die before it can be reborn with new knowledge and abilities: you find it in mystery cults in the old world, in several of today's religions, in native shamanistic beliefs, in modern esoteric orders, etc. Once back to life, he can do the things he was foretold to do. The process continues, now he is faced with tradicional question of Fate _versus_ free will (the nature of the hero) and eventually reaches the Source, the center of things, the Origin, from where he comes wiser and more powerful; the same happened with Odin when he hung himself in Yggdrasil, the World Tree, _axis mundi_, thus achieving the power of the runes. Once in the fullness of his nature and knowledge, the One has to face his final challenge and do what he was foretold to do, face his arch-enemy, even if that means to lose his life. When Neo did it, the first thing that came to my mind were Frodo's words:



> *I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.*



_The Matrix_ is trully an epic of high quality and this post is already a long one. Sorry about that, but I hope you got a better glimpse of what the triology is all about. Enjoy!


----------



## Freawine (Dec 12, 2003)

*Re: Lotr rockS*



> _Originally posted by Paul _
> *Lord of the rings has alot more feeling than the matrix and also so much history and depth. The author created an entire world and a language! truly a great work *



You're refering to the books, the question is about the movies which, I'm affraid, are a wholly different thing. Peter Jackson did not create an entire world and a language (let alone several), he did not write the _Lord of the Rings_ and failled to transfer most of what Tolkien did write in terms of ideas, character construction and plot care and detail into the movie. Hence, you cannot state that the film production has the same quality as the books do: they are two different things - much more than several people would have - and I suspect that many say that PJ's work is deep and complex because they are mistaking it with Tolkien's work.


----------



## Persephone (Dec 12, 2003)

IMHO

Matrix sucked big time! The first movie was breathtaking, the second movie was confussing, the third movie was plain dumb. Many of the questions in the second movie were never answered, the third installment had so many flaws it was like looking at a moth-eaten sweater. I won't even begin going into details but whoever wrote the script for Matrix was like a sales graph that suddenly went bankrupt. He was amazing at the beginning, if he only sustained the momentum till the end. But no he took the easy way out and relied heavily on the special effects. 

The storyline is horrible. The effects is spectacular, but in this day and age, is there really anything impossible? So it's not even supposed to count. The storyline is very important - and that trilogy had some good ones the first time.


----------



## Freawine (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Narya _
> *IMHO
> 
> Matrix sucked big time! The first movie was breathtaking, the second movie was confussing, the third movie was plain dumb.*



The first thing to have in mind is that _The Matrix_ is a triology: if I had taken _Revolutions_ on it's own I would have found it terrible. The things is, it's only the final chapter, hence to sustain it on it's own would be like reading only the final chapters of the _Lord of the Rings_. Also, if you found the story confusing that doesn't mean that it sucks, rather that it's harder to grasp. It is often so when one is faced with matters of Fate _versus_ Free Will, what had been taken as true and certain becomes false and matter of doubt, the chessboard is simply turned into a _qui pro quo_ sort of thing. All the more fun, as it becomes an even bigger puzzle and forces you to review your own perception of things, both in the movie and, if you go a little more down the rabbit hole, in your life as well.



> *Many of the questions in the second movie were never answered...*




Such as...?



> *...the third installment had so many flaws it was like looking at a moth-eaten sweater.*




Such as...? You do know that the full data on the story is spread throughout three sources - the movies, _Animatrix_ and the pc game - don't you?



> *I won't even begin going into details but whoever wrote the script for Matrix was like a sales graph that suddenly went bankrupt. He was amazing at the beginning, if he only sustained the momentum till the end. But no he took the easy way out and relied heavily on the special effects.*




Did he? Or was it a problem with viewers that failled to see beyond the special effects and look into the story and it's details. Flashing and fireworks can work both ways: they can distract you from the plot holes and lack of coherence - such as in PJ's _Lord of the Rings_ - or they can backfire and distract people, as it seems to be the case with _The Matrix_. It happened with the first movie and it came at an even greater scale with the other two. People tend to see it as little more than an action movie, when in fact is it much, much more than that. Not that I hated the special effects fireworks, quite on the contrary: when I love a story, it's basis, development and it's details if I can also have a bonus of great scenes and soundtrack, so be it: the more the merrier! Nothing like having my brain bubbling with years of philosophy studies in College, plus readings on History of the religions, classical literature and mythological primary sources, which in itself is already a huge adrenaline, with another bonus dosage of it _via_ fight scenes.



> *The storyline is horrible. The effects is spectacular, but in this day and age, is there really anything impossible? So it's not even supposed to count. The storyline is very important - and that trilogy had some good ones the first time. *



I agree, it is important, which is why I love reading the _Lord of the Rings_ and watch _The Matrix_: they're both great epics, have an enormous amount of references to old sources and mythologies and they follow a tradicional (should I say medieval?) pattern in more than one way. It is complex because it makes turns and turns - _The Matrix_ more than Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_ - that appear to turn the story upside-down, but only makes it an even bigger intelectual challenge as things are not set in a linear, easy to consume way: you have to work the puzzle yourself instead of being spoon fed. PJ's movie, on the other hand, is no more than a poorly modern, simplistic and comercial version of it: it lacked much of the quality in content that both Tolkien and the Wachowski gave to their stories, the ability to have elements that allow mythical patterns to be recognizable, functional, coherent and alive. They're packages of Western culture, PJ's of movie sensacionalism with little content behind it: just the imediacy of emotions and simple problems with no deeper and more complex development, as the director believed his audience was to ignorant to make the intelectual effort to go as far as Tolkien could take them.


----------



## Roilya (Dec 12, 2003)

Now that you explain it in words freawine. The Matrix is a pretty good story, i understand it now. It was hard for my tiny brain to follow a complex story line with all those sweet explosions. but now that you explained it. the matrix isnt so bad, and u can disregard all the previous things ive said.


----------



## Persephone (Dec 12, 2003)

Freawine, I understand that you are "obviously" a Matrix fan. but you are asking which we like better, right? And that is my opinion, I don't want to get into a debate with someone who feels strongly for Matrix the way I feel strongly about LOTR. It's pointless, you will never accept my side, as I will never accept yours, but the topic is asking members of TTF which trilogy they like, and that is my answer, to me *MATRIX SUCKS BIG TIME!* and I don't need to explain myself to you nor to anyone in here.

Your scrutiny of my post just prooves one thing to *me*: YOU YOURSELF DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MOVIE. I have seen all the films, and I am not an idiot either, I'm not saying you are, it's possible it's just a difference of opinion and point of view.

I just feel that we don't need to scrutinize one another's posts in a thread that asks for opinions. Live and let live, I say, post and let post.

OK?


----------



## Freawine (Dec 12, 2003)

Narya, yes, we are being asked which one do we like better, and it is certain that we all have our reasons. As such, if one considers that reason A or B is not valid - in the sense that it does not portray the movie correctly - than he/she is certainly free to coment and expose counter-arguments. If you don't want to tell the forum members why you dislike the movie you're free to do so, but others, however, are free to expose their arguments and counter-argument: we all have an opinion and they are based on something if they're to be fundamented ones, at least.

And no, you don't have to change your opinion: my post was a counter-argument on what you said and a request for arguments you never presented. Whether you accept any of the reasons presented if up to you, and so the changing of yours, but that's how a debate works. Call it a bad habit, if you like, but when some one states an opinion I usually expect motives to follow it in order to sustain it. If you usually procced otherwise so be it: just don't expect others to simple say _yes_ or _no_, _answer A_ or _answer B_ without a justification or discussion of those of others. That's what a forum is all about: argumentative speech.


----------



## Freawine (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Roilya _
> *It was hard for my tiny brain to follow a complex story line with all those sweet explosions. but now that you explained it. the matrix isnt so bad, and u can disregard all the previous things ive said. *



Mind your self-esteem, there's no need to bring it down  _The Matrix_ is a complex a movie with a complex story: I myself haven't yet grasp a large part of it and only when I'll be able to watch the three movies one time after another, notebook next to me, will I have a chance of getting deeper into the rabbit hole. If others don't go as deep as the movie allows that doesn't mean that they have smaller brains: we all have different interests and abilities, and naturally have distinct areas of knwoledge. Sometimes it provides you with the necessary basis to grasp certain things; others who don't have such basis will find it hard to follow you and all one has to do is to keep an open mind and try to learn. I do it when it comes to computer related data concerning _The Matrix_ as well as with many other things.

What the Wachowski did is not simply food for the eyes (and ears), it's largely food for the mind, a huge puzzle on human nature and our relation with our surroundings, in as much as it was forbidden in several countries, such as Egypt (Cfr. News of religious intolerance ). Admitebly not all have the ability to go as down as they invite you to, either because people don't care or don't know, mostly because they never were interested in it or never such topics crossed their school life (not everyone reads Plato, Descartes, pre-Christian, Christian, Buddhist and Gnostic material). That's why there's learning, and that's why we have brains: not smaller, just filled with different things that our different areas of interest gave us. Just keep an open mind


----------



## Persephone (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Freawine _
> *And no, you don't have to change your opinion: my post was a counter-argument on what you said and a request for arguments you never presented. *



and that is my point, why the need to contradict or counter-argue somebody elses' opinion? What for? Isn't it to change their opinion to side with yours? Because if that isn't your purpose than it is pointless to counter-argue.

That's the point of this thread, everybody is entitled to their opinion, if it was a thread saying LOTR trilogy is much better than matrix, or vise-versa, then you and anybody else have the authority to post counter-opinions. But in a thread like this, you don't do that. So can we stop the COUNTER-OPINIONS???

And like I said, I don't want to get into a debate explaining my side of the story, I AVOID THREADS LIKE THOSE because of the need to debate. This is NOT like those threads. let's not make it into one.


----------



## Sephiroth (Dec 13, 2003)

the Matrix should NEVER have become a trilogy

Reloaded and especcially Revolutions are just embarrising

Lord of the Rings wins this easily


----------



## arisen pheonix (Dec 13, 2003)

i think they screwed up matrix2 .....they wasted all that time in the begining and then rush through everything else....the twins were cool though...


----------



## MrFrodo (Dec 13, 2003)

Freawine
can i ask you a question??

Is Keane Reeves a good actor??...Not that great

Did the love story progress between trinity and Neo ???...No seemed pointless

Why suddenley was Agent Smith able to fly??

Why was Neo able to jack in without being plugged in??

How can smith acess the world....yeah he can copy but WHAT THE HELL???

i could go on...but i have better things to do


Look....i enjoyed the matrix because im a sucker for good action movies, but the ending really dissappointed me....coem on did you think the ending was Jusitfied???


and secondly did the Matrix have FLAWS??

YES.....every film does....

and Narya my opinions are facts


----------



## Freawine (Dec 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MrFrodo _
> *Freawine
> can i ask you a question??
> 
> Is Keane Reeves a good actor??...Not that great*



There are two things to be said concerning that point. First of all, he may not be the best of actors, but he is perfect for the part. Why? Because secondly he plays the role of a Buddha like character, one that was able to come out of the _Samsara_, the illusionary world of brith, death and rebirth, achieve his enlightment (his death and rebirth) and, thus, see illusion as exactly that: illusion, data fed to the mind but only a dreamworld. That's what he sees after coming back to life, things as no more than computer data. It is only then that he is able to do what only the One could do: stop bullets, bend and break the rules of the Matrix (such as gravity) etc.

Now, in case you haven't noticed, Buddhist iconography has two general ways of representing a buddha (or even a bodhisattva): it usually holds either a soft smile or a perfectly neutral and unexpressive look. When I see Keanu Reeves with the same smile every scene, with a lack of intensity, I see a Buddha like character taken to such detail, not a flaw from the actor...and even if it was a flaw, it was a damn good one. 



> *Did the love story progress between trinity and Neo ???...No seemed pointless*




Well, if it seemed pointless to you that doesn't mean it was pointless in the story: just that you failled to see it's meaning. At first the fact that Trinitty will fall in love for the One is like the bearing of a mark, that small indication that will allow a distinction between the real chosen and a fake _one_. That's why Trinitty knows that Neo cannot be dead in the first movie, that's why she's able to bring him back to life at the crucial moment of his iniciatory process. In the second movie their love plays a highly important role twice with a conclusive moment that works as a third moment. First, it is their ability to trully love themselves that allows them to get to the Key Maker, _via_ Persephone: remember that she requested a kiss of true love from Neo. Secondly, their love is also what makes Neo choose the door at his left, instead of taking the right one and reboot the Matrix, just like the previous five Ones had done: he knows Trinitty is in danger, he knows the only way to save her is by going back to the Matrix, hence the left door choice. By doing so, he opens the way to a new stage in his development process, with new powers and new abilities, the ones he will need to finish his task in _Revolutions_. Thirdly, in _Reloaded_, it is his turn to save Trinitty and give life back to her. The circle is complete and the last chaper of the story can begin. Also in _Revolutions_ it is Trinitty's love for Neo that mamanges to get him back by threatning the Merovingian: he her love was not true, she would have failled, and Persephone was there to say that she would pull the trigger if she had to.



> *Why suddenley was Agent Smith able to fly??*




Because he was Neo's alter-ego, as the Oracle said he was Neo, his darker equal and, as such, he developed the same abilities as the One did. 



> *Why was Neo able to jack in without being plugged in??*




You mean when he was in a coma? That's one of those things a computer expert tried to explain me, but as it's not my area I can only give you a simpler version. As the Oracle said, the power of the One extends beyond the Matrix, and once he has been in the Source and returned such powers would be enhanced, thus being able to do in the outside world things that until then he would only be able to do in the dreamworld. Remember the blue pill, red pill thing? That was a tracing device that allowed the tracking of Neo's signal in the machine's "power plant", i.e., something taken in the dreamworld actually had a connection with the real one. Now, you remember that candy the Oracle gave Neo? It's a pill as well, only it works in a slightly different way: it allows Neo's actions in the real world to have an effect in the machine one, a link which, I believe, could have the effect of leaving him in a world between the real and the machine one, which is where he was while in a coma. And no, he was not in the Matrix: Trinitty asked Link to look for him and he didn't find him, remember? He was between the Matrix and the real world, at the train station between one and the other.



> *How can smith acess the world....yeah he can copy but WHAT THE HELL???*




Again, he is Neo, a darker version of him: whatever Neo could achieve, Smith would too. But if you want a detailled answer you'll have to ask a computer expert, something which I'm not, although I have been told why it happens the way it does in the movie.



> *Look....i enjoyed the matrix because im a sucker for good action movies, but the ending really dissappointed me....coem on did you think the ending was Jusitfied???*




Perhapes the problem lies exactly on being _just_ a "sucker for good action movies": you need to look for much more than just fight and special effects scenes to enjoy _The Matrix_, which is why it is such a good movie. Rich, deep, huge in content, a detailed work.  

Concerning the ending, do you mean the fact that it's an open one or to both Neo's and Trinitty's death? A non-conclusive end is something I find enjoyable: it makes you think, makes it more difficult for one to go home with a _case closed_ attitude. The death of Neo and Trinitty should hardly be a surprise for a Tolkien reader or fan: check Frodo's words in the final chapter of the _Lord of the Rings_, those same I quoted, in case you haven't noticed it. 



> *and secondly did the Matrix have FLAWS??
> 
> YES.....every film does....*




Correct, every film does. But while certain movies are unable to compensate their flaws, others are, and _The Matrix_ certainly does!


----------



## Freawine (Dec 13, 2003)

I order to prevent an even longer post I decided to write this on a different one.

To be honest, at times _The Matrix_ felt like Tolkien: there was the ending, as noted, but then there was also Neo's journey to the Source. As already stated, that episode follows close by a traditional and often repeated pattern of the hero/god/saviour, in training or not so much, that goes to the Origin, the Source, the Center of the World in order to achieve his goal, usually by gaining new knowledge and powers. I have given the example of the god Odin who hung himself in Yggdrasil, the World Tree, _axis mundi_, the central point of the Cosmos, returning from such shaman like experience with the power of the runes. In the _Lord of the Rings_ there is one episode that has a similar pattern: the Path of the Dead.

Aragorn (hero) goes down into an underground area where the Dead can be found (Underworld, Realm of the Dead). There he must fully recall his nature, his Fate, who he is, in order to get the means he requires to achieve his ends. Only the hero can do so, for only he has such power/ability/right. Hence Aragorn calls himself the heir of Isildur, for only he has the right to invoke the aid of those that failled Isildur. The same way, only Neo can reach the Source, only he is destined to use the key that the Key Maker made for him: Cfr. the pc game _Enter the Matrix_ and remember he was waiting for Neo and the others to come and rescue him, since we're all ment to do what we're ment to do.

This note on Fate was also another thing that recalled me of the _Lord of the Rings_. Tolkien gave us several elements in which one can see an external force, Fate, working things out: Gollum, the finding of the Ring by a hobbit, etc. At one point in the second chapter Gandalf himself tells it to Frodo. And then there is the prophecy element, which gives a mythical tone to it. And it is the mythical charge that _The Matrix_ and Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_ have, a structure that can be found in old myths and epics, a traditional plot pattern; PJ's version, on the other hand, lost most of it, and all too often not by needs derived from the fact that one thing is a movie, the other a book, but by simple desire of the Director who just couldn't get a hold of his hyperactive ego and idiotic mind. And please do note that idiot means he who has a lot of ideas, too many, I'm affraid: the fact that the movie scripts were changed from night to day goes to prove it.


----------



## MrFrodo (Dec 14, 2003)

ok were do i start.......



> Buddha like character



I am sure if this is what the directors were after they would have mentioned it in interviews....However i do agree to some extent he was 'right for the part'......i asked the second question wrongly sorry........i should have said did YOU really believe they were in love.?? was there a real connection....maybe i should be looking at trinty....maybe Carrie -Anne played her to macho.......however i feel this is a huge flaw (any one agree)




> which is why it is such a good movie. Rich, deep, huge in content, a detailed work



Just like lord of the rings!




> the Director who just couldn't get a hold of his hyperactive ego and idiotic mind



Your damm right ....the W Brothers....thought they were gods.... and put to much into the last two movies.....


----------



## Freawine (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MrFrodo _
> *I am sure if this is what the directors were after they would have mentioned it in interviews....*



The Wachowski Brothers have said one time after another that Buddhism was one of their main sources of influence. In an article at the movie's official site:



> *When asked by a fan if Buddhist ideas influenced them in the production of the movie, the Wachowski brothers offered an unqualified "Yes." Indeed, Buddhist ideas pervade the film and appear in close proximity with the equally strong Christian imagery. Almost immediately after Neo is identified as "my own personal Jesus Christ," this appellation is given a distinctively Buddhist twist.*



The same article also includes a section on _Neo as the Buddha_.



> *Was there a real connection....maybe i should be looking at trinty....maybe Carrie -Anne played her to macho.......however i feel this is a huge flaw (any one agree)*



The connection was real enough to bring Neo back to life. Since the Oracle said that she would fall in love with the One, only a real connection would be able to do what Trinitty's words and kiss did. The same goes for Neo when he took the left door against all odds, considering what he was told by the Architect. Then there's also their journey to the heart of the machine world, Neo blind and a Trinitty who was not the One: trust was required, and such trust was fed by their love. If a real connection had been absent, none of this would have been possible.



> *...which is why it is such a good movie. Rich, deep, huge in content, a detailed work
> 
> Just like lord of the rings!*



Tolkien's, yes. But that matter here is not the Professor's version, but PJ's, which is far (sometimes very far indeed) from the quality levels of the original. The book _Lord of the Rings_ is an exceptional epic with deep content and a detailed plot and character construction. For instance, ever noticed how Tolkien gave Aragorn and Faramir similar attitudes and descriptions by different characters? At the Pony, Strider acts the same way Faramir does when he finds out that the hobbits have the Ring; in Rivendell Frodo says Aragorn looks like Gandalf, while latter Sam says Faramir has a wizard look. This is like a tapestry, a very well woven story in which the small facts *do* matter and are an important part of work. _The Matrix_ has an equal amount of well worked detail, most of it a direct reference to parts of our history and cultural roots: the blind man at the entrance of the Oracle's building (I suppose I don't have to tell you about the common link between blindness and prophecy in Greek myth, for instance); the names of the ships and characters in connection to their role in the story (the _Hammer_ takes part in the battle in Zion by means of an electrical charge, for instance); the seemingly unimportant candy the Oracle gives Neo in _Reloaded_, latter focused by the camera in _Revolutions_; the black cat in the first movie's _dejá vu_ and latter in _Revolutions_ when the Matrix updates, changes and cleans the mess from Neo's fight with Smith, etc. Plus, _The Matrix_ is trully a huge reservoir of western and eastern culture: ancient, modern and contemporary philosophy, budhhist and gnostic one as well, History of Religions, pre-Christian european _mythos_, Judeo-Christian culture. It's like having products of the pillars of Western civilization in a triology that deals with problems and matters europeans of previous ages have and most today have forgotten, either because they don't care or prefer not to (the matter of Fate is a good example of it).

Now looking at PJ's _Lord of the Rings_, it has no detailed weaving, no deeply laid plot and character construction, no deep treatment of themes, only superficial, as the real one was replaced by battle scenes and idiotic _non sense_ moments such as Faramir's trip to Osgliliath and Aragorn's fall. It is most certainly not a reservoir of western culture, let alone eastern one, it has no carefully planed chain of events, which is not exactly a surprise, as the script was often changed in a matter of minutes. When one is dealing with a story as complex as the _Lord of the Rings_ one cannot assume that the removal of a minor fact will have no consequences in latter plot developments; when one's addapting a tapestry-like story several baddly woven small points can lead to a ruining of the pattern, which is what happened with PJ's low quality production. At one point the man wasn't even aware of what he was saying about Faramir, presenting arguments that his own movie contradicted.



> *Your damm right ....the W Brothers....thought they were gods.... and put to much into the last two movies..... *



Too much? No! A lot? Yes! And that's one of things that makes it such a great triology: it has a huge amount of data. Unlike PJ, they weren't worried about the audience's lack of inteligence and actually considered it capable of responding to the challenge. PJ, on the other hand, likes to think we're all a bunch of empty heads who can't take with Tolkien's detailed work, hence a simplistic, low quality, little complex and poor movie the _Lord of the Rings_ turned out to be.


----------



## Gandalf White (Dec 15, 2003)

Wow! Thank you for that previous post, long as it was. I certainly look forward to viewing the Matrix, and if I'm confused I know where to look.  

(Of course, you know I disagree LotR-wise.) 

Narya, if you seek to state an opinion without anything to back it up, I suggest you do so without bashing the other side. It just looks bad...


----------



## MrFrodo (Dec 15, 2003)

Gandalf White i suggest you watch the first matrix and leave it at that. The others WILL only dissapoint you.

I’m not stupid I can see all the Christian and Buddhist connections and yes it’s impressive. But the question I’m asking you does that necessarily makes it a better film.

It is important to understand what the real appeal of The Matrix is. Yes, everybody knows about the kung-fu action, the bullet time special effects and the slow-mo gunplay fluidly mixing with break-neck music, but what was the real appeal of the film that made it stand out? For that, we have to look at the story of the film -- not necessarily the narrative, but the set-up and mythos The Matrix created. 

Like any good fantasy, The Matrix creates a world in which to draw its audience. The appeal of this world is directly related to the fact that it is anchored in our reality, our world as we currently live in it. By making the world of the Matrix familiar and giving the audience the capability to relate to the characters in the film and their journey, the W Brothers created a supremely compelling and fascinating dramatic core. When the directors took this core and surrounded it with high-octane action, karma cool themes and mind-blowing special effects and with RELOADED, it was all taken away. 


Instead of focusing on what the audience wants the directors were more interested in telling their story. I get the feeling that the W Brothers sat down and thought out what would be a cool action scene to film and then decided to find a way to shoot it !!!!!!!

Lord of the Rings its psychological angle is the best film you are ever likely to come across with an intricate message about the ability of power to corrupt and a potent symbol of the eternal struggle between good and evil not just around us but alkso within us . I could go on..........

stop mubbling about the religous stuff.....and tell me what makes the film better than Lord of thre Rings...


----------



## Freawine (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MrFrodo _
> *I’m not stupid I can see all the Christian and Buddhist connections and yes it’s impressive. But the question I’m asking you does that necessarily makes it a better film.*



And my answer would be yes, it does. As long as its not a simple throwing in with no organized and coherent plot, something that generally doesn't happen with the _Matrix_. I prefer much more a movie that has great content even if the special effects aren't the best than the opposite, which is why I enjoy the _Matrix_ so much and dislike PJ's _Lord of the Rings_ the way I do: too much fireworks, little content.



> *Like any good fantasy, The Matrix creates a world in which to draw its audience. The appeal of this world is directly related to the fact that it is anchored in our reality, our world as we currently live in it. By making the world of the Matrix familiar and giving the audience the capability to relate to the characters in the film and their journey, the W Brothers created a supremely compelling and fascinating dramatic core. When the directors took this core and surrounded it with high-octane action, karma cool themes and mind-blowing special effects and with RELOADED, it was all taken away. *



You're forgetting that in the first movie you already had "_mind-blowing_" special effects and "_karma cool themes_": if that was ever the problem than all three of them would have been bad movies, according to you. Yet you seen to agree that the first was a great one, so where's the problem? Perhaps in the difficulty in dealing with the themes in _Reloaded_ as they are often much more subtle, even though mentioned one time after another: Fate _versus_ Free Will, Choice, Human nature, Human _and_ Machine _nature_. If people fail to grasp these concepts and their development in the movies no wonder they'll state that _Realoaded_ was ruined by special effects and karma cool themes: that's most if not all of what they're able to see in it. 

Considerations on the first movie can also be made. It may have been appealing because it created a mythical story anchored in our reality, but for me the pleasure in watching the _Matrix_ triology is in the possibility of finding such a huge richness in content with the implications it has in things that we often take as granted, such as our individual, free and independent self, often more of a falacy of modern society than anything else. What the Wachowski produced has the sources, the abundant content, means and direct references that allow to raise such questions, and it's all compressed in a triology that's eye and ear pleasant; Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_ has as it well; PJ's version, however, falls short of it. And it's not as if the original work hasn't got it: it was simply because the director thought we were to ignorant to get it, thus removing it and making a simpler, easier to consume version.



> *Instead of focusing on what the audience wants the directors were more interested in telling their story. *



Exactly! Instead of giving us easy work, mere entertainement for us to watch and rest (most people don't like to be disturbed by Plato at their Sunday resting moment), taking the same way PJ took and see us as ignorants who can't scope with a more complex story in which we have to gather the pieces of the puzzle ourselves, the Wachowski Brothers decided not to spoon feed us, having the courage to present us with something that goes beyond the easy to consume Hollywood product. They gave us a triology that does require some research, readings and a bit more mental work than basic plot lines with basic underdevolped themes. To grasp the _Matrix_ fully - or close to it - you have to be aware and know of things from several different areas. It's not a simple matter of going to the cinema: it gives you homework! Most people find that anoying; it find it amusing and stimulating!



> *Lord of the Rings its psychological angle is the best film you are ever likely to come across with an intricate message about the ability of power to corrupt and a potent symbol of the eternal struggle between good and evil not just around us but alkso within us . I could go on..........*



PJ's _Lord of the Rings_ could have been as deep as Tolkien's, but alas, it felt short of it; it never went beyond the basic. At one point in the original story, Chapter VII, Book II, after Sam told her that she should have taken the Ring and "_make some folk pay for their dirty work_", Galadriel's answer to him was as deep as it was sublime:



> *'I would', she said. 'That is how it would begin.'*



Thus a small line was able to catch the _modus operandi_, if not the very essence of evil (at least from Tolkien's point of view): it starts with good intentions, in the beginning it is always good; but once power has been tasted it wont be easily relinquished, hence power begins to be not a mean but an end in itself, not the duty and responsibility of it, but the right to have and to own it: what was right becomes wrong, good intentions become bad ones. It acts like a vice that slowly removes your ability to choose, to make your own decisions, your very own Free Will, until you become a shadow of your former self or, in other words, a Wraith. And you can check your History books to look for suitable examples. 

In PJ's version, however, things never went so far. He made his best to make things simpler, easier to understand, spoon feed us, never as subtle and deep as the Professor. Things are much more basic, a quick catch: Gandalf simply cannot take the Ring and Faramir has to make a Ring-hungry trip to Osgiliath so that viewers wouldn't be confused as to the powerful nature of that object. Sometimes it's even contradictory: Aragorn had no problem in refusing it, it actually seemed quite easy for him. Tolkien gave a lot more worked, deep and detailled view of things, he expanded our own instead of simply giving what the audience wanted; Tolkien had a way with hiding great things behind the smallest mask. Some of his characters also refuse the Ring quite easily, only he explains why, or at least gives us clues, thus lending us a consistent plot; PJ's doesn't, he simply goes contradiction way. What PJ did right was what's according to the original story, Galadriel and Boromir being prime examples of it. So you see, he falls short of it, sometimes even contradicts himself, lending the theme a poor and basic treatment, only because he wasn't brave and responsible enough to keep things Tolkien: he had to go Peter Jackson style, and worst, without the same level of care and dept the original has. The Professor gave us homework; the Director presented us a less cared, less deep, less worked, incoherent and easy to consume version. PJ was too worried about what the audience wanted; Tolkien said in the Foreword:



> *I desired to do this for my own satisfaction, and I had little hope that others would be interested in this work...*



PJ doesn't take us as far and wide as the story in the book does, largely it doesn't go much beyond basic and simple ideas.



> *stop mubbling about the religous stuff.....and tell me what makes the film better than Lord of thre Rings... *



I already have, in this post and in the others. Perhaps you missed it; perhaps the fact that you consider the "_religous stuff_" as just mubbling of mine explains why you're yet to see why I consider the _Matrix_ a much better film than the _Lord of the Rings_. Perhaps you also considered it as mubbling in the movies?


----------



## Persephone (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Gandalf White _
> *Wow! Thank you for that previous post, long as it was. I certainly look forward to viewing the Matrix, and if I'm confused I know where to look.
> 
> (Of course, you know I disagree LotR-wise.)
> ...



Well, I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but that is how I feel about the film. I love Keanu, and I did say that the first Matrix movie was good, but the next two really sucked. And if you disagree, then who am I to stop you. Then again who are you to stop me from saying what I feel? 

Like I said, to each his own. If I bash Matrix, it's because I feel like it deserves some bashing. An opinion is an opinion, whether it's pro or con. If you think it looks bad, THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM.

I still feel the second and third installment including ANIMATRIX - sucked big time.


----------



## Gandalf White (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Narya _
> *Like I said, to each his own. If I bash Matrix, it's because I feel like it deserves some bashing. An opinion is an opinion, whether it's pro or con. If you think it looks bad, THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM.
> 
> I still feel the second and third installment including ANIMATRIX - sucked big time. *


 No, you didn't offend me. Without getting into pointless debate, I don't _think_ it looks bad, I _know _ it does. You are absolutely free to say you disliked the movies, and prefer LotR. However, to so vocally smash the Matrix without any backup is not right. 

Mr. Frodo, in order to really understand these movies I have to see all three. Only then can I have a 'real' opinion.


----------



## Persephone (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Gandalf White _
> *No, you didn't offend me. Without getting into pointless debate, I don't think it looks bad, I know  it does. You are absolutely free to say you disliked the movies, and prefer LotR. However, to so vocally smash the Matrix without any backup is not right.
> 
> *



Well, to be honest, I also didn't like TTT. It was not properly done, and FOTR was also ok. I think that's the problem with sequels. I don't know about ROTK. Haven't seen it yet. I hope I don't get disappointed.

But the truth, I loved the concept of Matrix, and just to let you in on a little secret, I talked to someone who had an inside info on the film, he said the original concept for the story, was that it was a MATRIX within A MATRIX. That would have been more mind boggling!

He said, that Trinity was a program sent to discontinue the Matrix. If you people remember what the architect said to Neo on Revolution, he said that there had been 6 versions of this event already, but this was the only time there was a TRINITY. The real score was that Trinity was sent to stop the cycle. All the other Neo's never fell in love, and so they chose the other choice: Which meant only a few people living to restart the cycle. But this time, Neo chose Trinity. IT was suppose to end the entire program. But they couldn't pull off the storyline, because it would entail a longer time frame. 

Couldn't see the logic in that. Now if the original (Had that been true) setting been followed then MATRIX would INDEED have been ONE GREAT TRILOGY. Outmatching Starwars even.


Don't you agree?


----------



## Gandalf White (Dec 15, 2003)

*holds head in hands*

Brain....freeze....!  Cannot process information! 

All of this sounds so interesting! And yet I'm still rather lost, though not because of you. Must...see...movies!


----------



## Freawine (Dec 16, 2003)

By the time _Reloaded_ came out, this was written by a movie fan. A large part of it turned out to be correct, but the main player behind getting Neo on the track to the final events that allowed the end of the war was the Oracle, not the Architect: it was she who told Morpheus he would find the One, that Trinitty would fall in love with him, that gave Neo the "candy", that led him to the Merovingian - hence, Persephone - and that finally gave Neo the final instructions, first as herself, latter while "taken" by Smith. She risked it all, she played a dangerous game, as the Architect told her, and she was never sure it would work. Like Morpheus in the first movie she could only show Neo the door: the decision of crossing it (and actually doing it) was his alone.

As in old mythologies, Mother and Father have conflicting plans and move us like pawns in order to achieve their goals.


----------



## Persephone (Dec 16, 2003)

Oracle is just another program in the matrix, like Agent smith. All Neo's were created to counter the Agent Smiths, hence it would sound like Agent smith was a virus, and Neo was Norton Anti-Virus. Oracle was nothing more than a windows or a DOS, telling Neo (norton) there is a virus in the system and only he can eliminate him. The Architect, like Oracle was also a program in the Matrix.

The fact that Agent smith was able to enter Neo's world and Neo having power out of the Matrix, is proof that what in fact seemed like reality was also a matrix!

But they couldn't go on with that storyline. No I didn't get this info from a fan...


----------



## Freawine (Dec 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Narya _
> *Oracle is just another program in the matrix, like Agent smith. All Neo's were created to counter the Agent Smiths, hence it would sound like Agent smith was a virus, and Neo was Norton Anti-Virus. Oracle was nothing more than a windows or a DOS, telling Neo (norton) there is a virus in the system and only he can eliminate him. The Architect, like Oracle was also a program in the Matrix.*



I suppose you are refering to an older version of the script. In the movies we are told again and again that the Oracle is responsible for much of the events, hence she's far from being just another program in the matrix. The same goes for the Architect whose form outside the cg dreamworld is seen in _Revolutions_: the machine to whom Neo proposes peace in return for his help against Smith. You will notice that the face formed by the smaller machines is that of the beared man in _Reloaded_. In the end of the third movie he tells the Oracle that she played a dangerous game, to which she responds that changes are always dangerous: another reference to the fact that they're both more than just programs inside the matrix and were actually the big players behind most of the sequence of events in the triology. It also confirms the Oracle's words to Neo in _Revolutions_ when she says she wants peace - which would equal unbalancing the equation - while the Architect is only interested in balancing it, implying the replay of the cycle, hence of the ever repeating reconstrution and destruction of Zion: lasting war, whereas the Oracle represents a different faction in the machine world, one that wants peace.



> *The fact that Agent smith was able to enter Neo's world and Neo having power out of the Matrix, is proof that what in fact seemed like reality was also a matrix!*



There were other elements in the two first movies that hinted the existence of a matrix inside the matrix: the camera going in and out of the tv images, the reflection on the character's glasses and the Architects references to systems of control, which could raise the possibility that the resistence, just like the illusion of choice, was used to (re)integrate problematic elements in the matrix, by creating a second one inside. However, like in many other things in the story, what it seems is not always real


----------



## Persephone (Dec 16, 2003)

Exactly. Now if they only made that CLEAR in the succeeding films (II and III) then maybe they would have gotten my nod. But no, they had to do it the other way, which to me really, really, SUCKED!


That enough explanation?


----------



## MrFrodo (Dec 17, 2003)

I totally agree with you Narya..........



> You're forgetting that in the first movie you already had "mind-blowing" special effects and "karma cool themes": if that was ever the problem than all three of them would have been bad movies, according to you.



Maybe you should re-read my comments. What I am saying is the Matrix was a brilliant film and reloaded changed that. 



> religious stuff



I am suggesting that this does not make a film a great film. Lord of the Rings has a much more direct and clear Christian imagery. Matrix changes between the two (Christian & Buddhism), because the W Brothers didn’t have any real idea what film they were making, maybe it was out of their depth.

In a letter to a friend, Tolkien wrote: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Christian work, unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision." Humphrey Carpenter, author of Tolkiens' authorized biography, says that Tolkien's writings are "the work of a profoundly religious man." 

The Lord of the Rings, is filled with battles and conflicts, images of spiritual war to which Christians can relate: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world . . . " (Ephesians 6:12). Tolkien's tale isn't generic "good versus evil," but about evil that gets up close and personal. Evil forces are led by Sauron, the dark lord. Sauron is desperately trying to regain the great ring and its immense power. The pitiful character, Gollum, discovered the ring, his "Precious," and kept it for many years. Eventually he became possessed by the sinister talisman. The ring is an image of the unwholesome, perverting power of evil and self-serving sin, a progressive, increasing, encroaching power that begins small but ends big. At its core, The Lord of the Rings is about the sovereignty of God, whose love and power are so great that He is able to work all things together for good (Romans 8:28). God uses even the Enemy's evil schemes to bring about the ultimate completion of His perfect plan. Within that plan, even Gollum plays a critical role in saving Middle Earth. In his book, The Silmarillion, Tolkien wrote: "Evil may yet be good to have been . . . and yet remain evil.". 

The idea that God uses small hands to achieve noble deeds is a fundamental part of the story (Cf., Moses and Pharaoh, David and Goliath, and Gideon and the Mideanites). When the power of evil comes our way and our future looks bleak, the solution is not to fight fire with fire, but to keep doing what's right and look for deliverance in unexpected places. Hope and salvation may come from unexpected sources: a hobbit-hole in the Shire.

Pj achieved the same, maybe not clear to you as your not looking deeper into, Pj could have re-name all the characters and places, added bits, but the essential core of this story is brilliant. The matrix on the other hand loses it in Reloaded.



> PJ's version, however, falls short of it. And it's not as if the original work hasn't got it: it was simply because the director thought we were to ignorant to get it, thus removing it and making a simpler, easier to consume version.



Pjs movie HAS to appeal to wider audience, we must remember the book is aimed at young readers. Therefore the film has to be slight toned down and considering this Pj achieves his goal and produces what I feel is the most important factor, a satisfying film.

Reloaded and Revolutions are empty ciphers that can be invested with whatever meaning one wishes because they are internally inconsistent and therefore open to many different interpretations. The Matrix was clearer with its Christian link. The other films however werent.

I dont want to keep revisiting this religious connections. 

One of the Matrixs Reloaded main problems was pacing it’s obvious that the move had no idea what tune to move at. The pacing was awkward at times, sometimes getting me revved up for action and cutting into complicated dialog too quickly, or showing long monotonous actions not knowing when to end.

How about the Zion party/dance sequence that lasted nearly 5 minutes longer than it should have. It was unnecessary and added nothing to the movie. I get it, they danced and have a good time nearly having sex while dancing... same thing I do when I go to the club. Go to the next scene please!!!

Another problem with the Matrix Reloaded was when Neo fights all those agent smiths. Yeah it was good but after a few watches you wonder why it was so long and you notice the dodgy effects, it looks more like a computer game. When I think about Kill Bill and its brilliant sequence with all the samurais (70) all real, I mean that’s good ****.

My message is that the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions was full of ****!! And when I think about it Revolutions was nearly a sci-fi movie on its own. I mean it spent about 10 to 15 minutes max in the Matrix. I've watch the ani-matrix and played the game and even this could not help my absolute disappoint. 

Each time I came out of the cinema when I watch the Fellowship and Two Towers I was like wow!!!...That was amazing. Then I watch the Matrix Reloaded. I was like ok, maybe it needs the other one (Revolutions) to really finish it off. Then I watched Revolutions I was like what the **** how can anything end like that.

I’m seeing Return of the King, in two days and I have absolute faith in Pj. It will truly be a great trilogy and will go down in History as one hell of an achievement.


----------



## Gandalf White (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MrFrodo _
> *I’m seeing Return of the King, in two days and I have absolute faith in Pj. It will truly be a great trilogy and will go down in History as one hell of an achievement. *


 On a side note: you won't (or shouldn't) be disappointed. It's the best one yet!


----------



## Freawine (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MrFrodo _
> *Lord of the Rings has a much more direct and clear Christian imagery. Matrix changes between the two (Christian & Buddhism), because the W Brothers didn’t have any real idea what film they were making, maybe it was out of their depth.*



The _Lord of the Rings_, the book, that is. People seem to confuse it with the movie: just because they have the same title and a superficial resemblance doesn't mean that the dept and content of the literary work can be found fully in the cinematic one. Peter Jackson managed to ruin the story in such a way that it is no longer an adaptation of Tolkien's work but a new thing only based on a starting point on the actual _Lord of the Rings_. 

The _Matrix_ changes between both religions (and others) because it's not suppose to be a translation of Judeo-Christian philosophy; it makes use of it, which is different. As such, there is much richness in the diversity of sources, be it Christian, Buddhist, pre-Christian, etc. It is the ability to use such a plural list of references and data that makes the _Matrix_ a production of great wealth in terms of cultural content. And the Wachowski were brave enough to give us a puzzle of cross cultural nature, not an easy to consume movie.



> *The idea that God uses small hands to achieve noble deeds is a fundamental part of the story (Cf., Moses and Pharaoh, David and Goliath, and Gideon and the Mideanites). When the power of evil comes our way and our future looks bleak, the solution is not to fight fire with fire, but to keep doing what's right and look for deliverance in unexpected places. Hope and salvation may come from unexpected sources: a hobbit-hole in the Shire.*



You're forgetting that Peter Jackson felt short of that when he changed the focus of the story from hobbits to humans, hence all the waste of time in a battle at Helm's Deep against an army created to destroy the world of men; hence also the idea that the Scouring of the Shire is a removable episode. 



> *Pj achieved the same, maybe not clear to you as your not looking deeper into, Pj could have re-name all the characters and places, added bits, but the essential core of this story is brilliant.*



The essecial core of the book story; the movie's is quite different. PJ didn't change the names of places and characters (at least most of them), he changed exactly what matters most: their personalities, the way they act, the way they think. He did it with Faramir, Aragorn and several others. And when one changes such things and considers the greater themes are more important than the smaller facts, the result if the lost of most of the content of the original story, especially with an author such as Tolkien. Characters are essencial ways to transmite ideas and values, to work out themes; the smaller facts are often what sustains the greater: if you lose the character's personality you lose a correct transmition of the themes; if you lose the smaller facts you lose that sustaining basis of the greater ones. 



> *The matrix on the other hand loses it in Reloaded.*




I disagree. The _Matrix_ allows its themes to evolve into new stages, to the point of changing what we saw as correct in the first movie. This by itself makes the grasping of the themes and its dynamics a lot more difficult due to the lost of reference points. To some this looks like the themes going out the window: it is, however, no more than a shift of perspective and an increase in difficulty. Not all, however, are able to follow the track. 



> *Pjs movie HAS to appeal to wider audience, we must remember the book is aimed at young readers.*




That the story had to be changed in order to work as a movie is something that is yet to be proved. The _Lord of the Rings_ is the 2nd most read book of the 20th century and to achieve that in such times is no small deed. Why? To read is not exactly the most done of all human activities today, namely when the book is a large one. Visual arts are often prefered to the written ones: less work, quicker, less boring to some. A book that came out in the 1950s and manages to become the 2nd most read of the century has something that was able to appeal in a way that little works did before it. Now, if the written word was able to do so, why should it be different in the cinema? If the story was good enough to reach 2nd place in a time of often low reading levels, why shouldn't it have what was necessary to work as a movie?



> *Reloaded and Revolutions are empty ciphers that can be invested with whatever meaning one wishes because they are internally inconsistent and therefore open to many different interpretations.*




They are empty if you fail to find out it's meaning and work the puzzle. _Realoded_ uncovers the working of the system, something of which we only had glimpses in the first movie: when Mr. Anderson is questioned by the Agents, you'll notice that he shows up in a wall of tv sets, just like in the Architect's room; Agent Smith told Morpheus that there were other versions of the matrix. These are small tips of the iceberg that were already being shown to us, latter to be explored in dept, though at the time of they seemed irrelevant. 

What happened was that we thought we had the whole picture, when in fact we ended up finding out that it was no more than a piece of the puzzle: the Oracle, the One, Zion, the war, the matrix, these things are bigger or different from what we thought they were. Such an amount of new data means to review all that we had taken as true - just like with Neo - and while some make that effort, others get lost and prefer to consider it an empty story.



> *The Matrix was clearer with its Christian link. The other films however werent.*




Christian and more: Buddhist, Gnostic, pagan Greek, shamanistic, esoteric, Hindu, etc. Diversity! And the other films have it as well: the ravens by the Oracle, angels with no wings, the dance at the temple in Zion, the names of other ships, the matter of Fate _versus_ Free Will, werewolves, etc. Maybe it is in a less appealing way to you, maybe it is more difficult to grasp: but such things are still there.



> *One of the Matrixs Reloaded main problems was pacing it’s obvious that the move had no idea what tune to move at. The pacing was awkward at times, sometimes getting me revved up for action and cutting into complicated dialog too quickly, or showing long monotonous actions not knowing when to end.*




Complicated dialog too quickly equals movie adrenaline to me. It forces me to review, think, (re)structure my analysis, use my memory, trying to fit pieces almost in a fragmentary way. Love it, and distint pacing levels helps it.



> *How about the Zion party/dance sequence that lasted nearly 5 minutes longer than it should have. It was unnecessary and added nothing to the movie.*




Actually it added to the movie, and it is one point where History of Religions is useful. If you look at pre-Christian celebrations at times that were seen as being of death - such as winter, for instance - certain festivities were common, manifestations of vitality against the surrounding death aimed at contaminating Nature itself with that same vitality, aimed at awakening Nature's fertility. Hence the dances, food abundant banquets, games, ritual fights and dramas, sexual rites, etc. All demonstrations of human vitality and its own ability to produce life when face to face with death, in order to warden it off. Read Mircea Eliade's _Traité d'histoire des religions_ and Roger Caillois _L'Homme et le Sacré_, for instance. What we have in _Reloaded_ is a manifestation of human biological nature, it's vitality, sexuality, it's life at several levels at the face of possible destruction by artificial, non-biological life. The religious nature of the scene is enhanced by the place where it takes place: the temple, better yet, a cave-temple. And it is not the first pre-Christian element we find. It has a sense of Dionysian religion in it, if you like, a sense of celebration of life against the possibility of death, of salvation.



> *Another problem with the Matrix Reloaded was when Neo fights all those agent smiths. Yeah it was good but after a few watches you wonder why it was so long and you notice the dodgy effects, it looks more like a computer game.*



Yes, the Smith scene if one of the down points in _Realoaded_.



> *My message is that the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions was full of ****!!*



Considering what you have been saying in all the past messages here, I believe it's a matter of not grasping several levels of content (no offence ment). Of course, this is not to say you are naturally unable to find out things, that would be thinking like Peter Jackson does, i.e., that the audience has a low I.Q. What I'm saying is that there are a lot of things in the _Matrix_ that need to be solved by use of diverse knowledge from different areas and cultural backgrounds, something that one single people usually doesn't have.



> *Then I watch the Matrix Reloaded. I was like ok, maybe it needs the other one (Revolutions) to really finish it off. Then I watched Revolutions I was like what the **** how can anything end like that.*




The same way the _Lord of the Rings_ book ends: the hero sacrifices himself for the sake of others.


----------



## MrFrodo (Dec 21, 2003)

> Peter Jackson managed to ruin the story in such a way that it is no longer an adaptation of Tolkien's work but a new thing only based on a starting point on the actual Lord of the Rings



I disagree, he had to cut elements of the book out because it would have been to long, and even harder to digest as a film. He did what a brave director that has faith in his work would do. The W Brothers didn’t have that faith and overloaded their film with too much. Maybe that because your expect the book on screen which of course is impossible, all I’m suggest is that PJ did an excellent job and achieve the ultimate goal an amazing film.





> You're forgetting that Peter Jackson felt short of that when he changed the focus of the story from hobbits to humans, hence all the waste of time in a battle at Helm's Deep against an army created to destroy the world of men; hence also the idea that the Scouring of the Shire is a removable episode



He has done this because as humans! We relate to the Human aspect of the story. The hobbits are still evolved in the story and add a brilliant element. The battle of helms deep was awesome, I have never seen any movies that had such an awesome sequence, and it was added again to re enforce the public that this is a groundbreaking film. If you like this see you’ll see better in the final one. It is used to keep the audience glued. The matrix and its effects (bullet time), however the matrix loses that in Matrix Revolutions as I have mentioned it spends less time in the Matrix. It is ironic that when the characters are unplugged so is the audience from the film. 



> he changed exactly what matters most: their personalities, the way they act, the way they think. He did it with Faramir, Aragorn and several others



Did he. Maybe he highlights certain aspects of their personalities that didn’t come across in the book to you. How do when know?? Only Tolkien can ever really be the judge of that. However lets think about the Matrix. Morpheus, seems the most affected in a huge personality change. Six months after the events of the first film, he suddenly doesn’t seem so scared of Agents. Morpheus has also lost much of his mystique. One scene, where Morpheus addresses the people of Zion is particularly painful to watch, especially because it’s, followed by the dance/sex scene entirely out of place. Then in Revolutions he becomes Niobes sidekick! I mean what the hell.


----------



## MrFrodo (Dec 21, 2003)

> Peter Jackson managed to ruin the story in such a way that it is no longer an adaptation of Tolkien's work but a new thing only based on a starting point on the actual Lord of the Rings



I disagree, he had to cut elements of the book out because it would have been to long, and even harder to digest as a film. He did what a brave director that has faith in his work would do. The W Brothers didn’t have that faith and overloaded their film with too much. Maybe that because your expect the book on screen which of course is impossible, all I’m suggest is that PJ did an excellent job and achieve the ultimate goal an amazing film.





> You're forgetting that Peter Jackson felt short of that when he changed the focus of the story from hobbits to humans, hence all the waste of time in a battle at Helm's Deep against an army created to destroy the world of men; hence also the idea that the Scouring of the Shire is a removable episode



He has done this because as humans! We relate to the Human aspect of the story. The hobbits are still evolved in the story and add a brilliant element. The battle of helms deep was awesome, I have never seen any movies that had such an awesome sequence, and it was added again to re enforce the public that this is a groundbreaking film. If you like this see you’ll see better in the final one. It is used to keep the audience glued. The matrix and its effects (bullet time), however the matrix loses that in Matrix Revolutions as I have mentioned it spends less time in the Matrix. It is ironic that when the characters are unplugged so is the audience from the film. 



> he changed exactly what matters most: their personalities, the way they act, the way they think. He did it with Faramir, Aragorn and several others



Did he. Maybe he highlights certain aspects of their personalities that didn’t come across in the book to you. How do when know?? Only Tolkien can ever really be the judge of that. However lets think about the Matrix. Morpheus, seems the most affected in a huge personality change. Six months after the events of the first film, he suddenly doesn’t seem so scared of Agents. Morpheus has also lost much of his mystique. One scene, where Morpheus addresses the people of Zion is particularly painful to watch, especially because it’s, followed by the dance/sex scene entirely out of place. Then in Revolutions he becomes Niobes sidekick! I mean what the hell.Ghost and Niobe in the game are never really feature in the film. Ghost to me was when playing the game becomes my favourite character and it was a huge disappointment to see him have very little in Reloaded and Revolutions. Why add these characters they do not strengthen the plot but weaken it.

And I think Aragorn was brilliant in the films and after seeing RotK I found I enjoy Faramir alot more. Another aspect what makes Lord of the Rings so much better is the brilliant preformances by the cast. Ian Mckellen a master adn Sean Bean. Gollum is most worthy of this coming oscar (when ever that is).



> Christian and more: Buddhist, Gnostic, pagan Greek, shamanistic, esoteric, Hindu, etc. Diversity!



Why? ...Like Pj the W Brothers wanted to make this film appealing to the audience. So they included way too much information when making the film they have no real direct link in its religious content. The first Matrix does have this link, (Christian imagery in my opinion) hence why the film works and is enjoyable. The Trilogy decides to look at other religious aspects therefore to much information is used and the film is then able to be interpurted how any one wants it to be. In this sense the W Brothers have then made thier film with a low I.Q as you have mention as they want people to make their own mind up, as to what kidn fo film they are making.

The simple question to me is which film is more enjoyable. I saw The Return of the King and i was wow when that film finish. I can understand why you like the Matrix because i myself highly rate it. But when i think about both of these trilogys Lord of the Rings wins defienlty since seeing the RoTK. 





> The same way the Lord of the Rings book ends: the hero sacrifices himself for the sake of others.



Is Neo dead i have asked you this before. As far as im concenered when the film finish there is no real evidence he is dead>> maybe coma>>> when the ship is taking him back>>>


----------



## Freawine (Dec 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MrFrodo _
> *I disagree, he had to cut elements of the book out because it would have been to long, and even harder to digest as a film. *



That he had to cut elements is not only an option, but an actual need in bringing such a huge work as the _Lord of the Rings_ to cinema. However, that does not make of it an excuse for every modification the story suffered. One thing is to contract the lenght of the plot; the other to change or even destroy the characters' personalities, and Faramir was a damn good example of it. Also, when one's reducing the extent of the tale one has to know it well enough in order to distinguish small and simple but rather important moments from others that can actually be removed. The extration of Tom Bombadil yes, however he missed that small sentence from Galadriel, probably because he considered it a small fact that would have little to do with the major themes. I said it once and I say it again: at several points it looks as if the script writters had a poor knowledge of the original story.

Has for digestion, people seem to have digested the _Lord of the Rings_ rather well as a book, one that managed to have a very high reading level, so how come it would be as undigestable as a movie as PJ sometimes tries to make us believe it is?



> *The W Brothers didn’t have that faith and overloaded their film with too much.*



Actually I would say they had faith both in themselves and in the audience, hence giving us not a simple and easy to consume movie but an actual mind breaker, a huge puzzle that forces us to investigate, go deeper and deeper to get things right. It is overloaded if you're not expecting something beyond the mere entertainment; I personally enjoy "_overloaded_" movies with several plot layers: makes things more stimulating, more fun, richer.



> *He has done this because as humans! We relate to the Human aspect of the story.*



So, according to your opinion, should I conclude that Tolkien made a mistake when he wrote a story in a hobbit perspective? After all, we're not hobbits, yet that didn't stop the _Lord of the Rings_ from becoming the second most read book in the 20th century, even though it was first published only in 1954. It seems that PJ was the one that had lack of faith, in this case lack of faith in the story Tolkien wrote. Not saying that the movie should be a literal copy of the book, but if a story that worked well enough to be highly *read* (and reading isn't the most popular activity there is), why should it be different when *seen*?



> *The battle of helms deep was awesome, I have never seen any movies that had such an awesome sequence, and it was added again to re enforce the public that this is a groundbreaking film.*



Even though the battle was full of pure Hollywood-like comercial non sense, such as that charge from inside the burg onto the field of battle and Gandalf and Eomer's charge agaisnt a wall of pikes. One thing is fantasy; the other is an everything goes attitude that wants to justifify every single moment, as long as it is a highly sensationalist one that appeals more to imediate emotions and little to the rational side.



> *... in Matrix Revolutions as I have mentioned it spends less time in the Matrix.*



Because the main action takes part in Zion. There really is nothing else that big to show in the matrix other than the Oracle scenes and the final battle with Smith. It would be incoherent to show mostly things in the cg dreamworld while the last human city was being attacked by 250 thousand machines and Neo has to travel to Machine City.



> *Did he. Maybe he highlights certain aspects of their personalities that didn’t come across in the book to you. How do when know?? Only Tolkien can ever really be the judge of that.*




Now, where in the book does Théoden has a coward aspect, Arwen a belic one, Faramir a spoilled bully personality and Elrond a possissive father almost to the last? Not to mention a Frodo that has no mature nature and wisdom of a hobbit by his 50's.



> *However lets think about the Matrix. Morpheus, seems the most affected in a huge personality change. Six months after the events of the first film, he suddenly doesn’t seem so scared of Agents.*



Because he now has the certainty that the One is with him. Like a mystic, he looses most if not all of his fears when he knows that his saviour has come and is someone he can trust in, that will not stop fighting as long as there is one breath of life in his body  His character in the entire movie is actually one with no fear: no fear of Agents, of facing his superior, of expressing his sincere opinion to the counsellor, even if others do not believe as he does.



> *Morpheus has also lost much of his mystique. One scene, where Morpheus addresses the people of Zion is particularly painful to watch, especially because it’s, followed by the dance/sex scene entirely out of place.*




Yes, his rethorical abilities weren't at their best during most of the speech, however, we do get (again) a Morpheus with no fear. He believes the end of the war is coming, now that the One has come, his trusts the prophecy, that peace is near, that they will win. As he said to the counsellor, they should be honest about invasion as there is nothing to fear, and his words to the people of Zion also give us another side of his absence of fear: the path that lies behind him.  

And I have already explained you how the dance/sex scene is far from being out of place: it is actually highly significant and perfecly consistent in a movie that has such a religiously abundant plot. Hm, maybe I can spot a line in a prayer to Dionysos that includes something valuable...



> *Then in Revolutions he becomes Niobes sidekick! I mean what the hell. *



They were once together, so Trinity said in _Reloaded_: the final stage of the war brings them together again, as Niobe believes in Neo (though not in the One) and is, therefore, willing to risk and face others. Such conducte over such person obviously brings her closer to Morpheus.


----------



## Freawine (Dec 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MrFrodo _
> *Ghost and Niobe in the game are never really feature in the film. Ghost to me was when playing the game becomes my favourite character and it was a huge disappointment to see him have very little in Reloaded and Revolutions. Why add these characters they do not strengthen the plot but weaken it.*




Because you failled to understand that the whole _Matrix_ story is not told fully in the movie. As I said before, the data is spread through three sources: the movies, _Animatrix_ and the pc game. In other words, if you want to understand things fully you have to see/play all of them, not just one: it is as if they were different volumes of the same story and, most naturally, some characters are more proeminent in one book than in the other. So, to answer to your question, the characters do contribute to the plot, only you're forgetting that the full extent of that same plot is not in the movie, but divided in two other sources, and one of them is the game. 



> *And I think Aragorn was brilliant in the films and after seeing RotK I found I enjoy Faramir alot more. Another aspect what makes Lord of the Rings so much better is the brilliant preformances by the cast. Ian Mckellen a master adn Sean Bean. Gollum is most worthy of this coming oscar (when ever that is).*




Aragorn was presented as someone who refuses to accept his heritage and only by being dragged by the events does he decide to claim it, i.e., only in the final chapter of the movie to we trully have Aragorn and not that Peter Jackson anti-hero kind of character.

Faramir is a desaster in the movies: PJ seems to think that the fact that he refuses the Ring is enough to make his character but, as usual, he was unable to distinguish the ends from the means. Once Faramir's greatest test - as Sam would put it - was ruined there was little else to do or to redeem: it would be like trying to convice people that a plank with golden ink is gold.

As for acting, I could take a couple of examples from the _Matrix_ that had the perfect actors for them: the Oracle, Seraph, Neo, Architect, Merovingian. There were also less fortunate choices, no doubt about that, but I could easily find some from PJ's movie as well.



> *Why? ...Like Pj the W Brothers wanted to make this film appealing to the audience. So they included way too much information when making the film they have no real direct link in its religious content.*




As said, I find the huge amount of information a stimulating thing, not a down side, which is one of the reasons I enjoy Tolkien's version and dislike PJ's so much. If you find it overwhelming maybe that's because you're not taking the challenge of working it out. In other words, I like a puzzle with thousands of small pieces and a detailled picture: if you find that too much than the problem lies not with the object but with he that has it in his hands, meaning, you. Not that you should be blamed for it, after all not all things are fit for everyone, not everyone has the same areas of interest. And all the three movies have religious links, though you probably find them less appealing for being less Christian: that does not make them disappear, however.



> *The first Matrix does have this link, (Christian imagery in my opinion) hence why the film works and is enjoyable. The Trilogy decides to look at other religious aspects therefore to much information is used and the film is then able to be interpurted how any one wants it to be.*



Is this a matter of religious bias? There are clear references to several religions from different times and areas of the world in the first movie, yet it seems that you only want to see the Christian one or the movie as a Christian metaphor, in as much as you consider it to go down when other religions are added in the second and third (even tough they were already there in the first one) or becomes less Christian. If you can't scope with other religions that's your problem, not the Wachowski's: the movies were made in a way that requires the knowledge from different areas to fully understand it, not just the Christian one, so if you're unable to open your mind to diversity no wonder you dislike the _Matrix_.



> *In this sense the W Brothers have then made thier film with a low I.Q as you have mention as they want people to make their own mind up, as to what kidn fo film they are making.*




Actually what I said was that the Wachowski made a triology *without* assuming that their audience has a low I. Q., hence a complicated movie with a huge amount of data from different sources and areas of knowledge.



> *Is Neo dead i have asked you this before. As far as im concenered when the film finish there is no real evidence he is dead>> maybe coma>>> when the ship is taking him back>>> *



He was either dead or his code rentered the _Matrix_ and, thus, he was "dissolved", sort of speaking, as the Architect said he would should he choose the right door. Either way, he was no more. The ship that took him was a machine, not a human vessel, as the _Logos_ was the only one to ever enter Machine City (at least in the 6th version).


----------



## Gildor (Dec 26, 2003)

I like both, for different reasons.

One of the difficulties that people seem to have with the Matrix is that the viewer must generally think about it quite a bit to fully grasp just what the heck is going on. I don't find this to be a bad thing, but some do.


----------



## MrFrodo (Jan 3, 2004)

..Well.........sorry this post has taken so long with christmas and stuff

I think its fair to conclude this arguement could go on for years.

So.......lets end it at that.....and decide Lord of the rings wins


----------



## Ireth Telrúnya (Jan 24, 2004)

Good choice, though Matrix is not that bad. It's just in totally different category. I liked Hugo Weaving there, though his words were not so many.

Mr. Anderson! Surprised..to see me?!


----------



## Flame of Udûn (Jan 24, 2004)

Freawine said:


> Because you failled to understand that the whole _Matrix_ story is not told fully in the movie. As I said before, the data is spread through three sources: the movies, _Animatrix_ and the pc game. In other words, if you want to understand things fully you have to see/play all of them, not just one: it is as if they were different volumes of the same story and, most naturally, some characters are more proeminent in one book than in the other. So, to answer to your question, the characters do contribute to the plot, only you're forgetting that the full extent of that same plot is not in the movie, but divided in two other sources, and one of them is the game.


But if we are debating the better of the two _trilogies_, then you cannot used TA and ETM as sources to expand the storyline, just as TLOTR proponents cannot use the books to do.


----------



## Freawine (Jan 25, 2004)

Flame of Udûn said:


> But if we are debating the better of the two _trilogies_, then you cannot used TA and ETM as sources to expand the storyline, just as TLOTR proponents cannot use the books to do.



And while Pj's _Lord of the Rings_ is an addaptation of Tolkien's work, the _Matrix_ is not one of _Animatrix_ or _Enter the Matrix_, rather they are auxiliars to understand the story that are *consistent with each other*. The cinematic version of the Professor's epic is, however, contradictory and at some points wholly different from the original.

You are, therefore, trying to compare very distinct things.


----------



## Ol'gaffer (Jan 31, 2004)

The Matrix was an ideal cinematic presentation. It combined aspects of sheer perfection essential to the one's systematical code. Reloaded was a second trial program of a higher version of the one, ergo the code, which nearly reaching sheer perfectness, concordantly could not comprehend the enigmatic data surge that was inexplicably served into it's main source. Revolutions was a binary enemaly that operated within outer reaches of the unprecedent source that concordantly opened all possible choices for the cinematic fiction that the average mind of a human body would accept. For the code, ergo, concordantly is inexplicably simply the concordant.......


I don't have a clue what I'm talking about, but that's Reloaded for you.

To me, Matrix was an amazing movie, and is one of my favorites. But when Reloaded and Revolutions came out, and suddenly you had to watch a collection of anime, play a bad videogame and read Philosophy 101 to understand the movies, I just lost all taste into them. I liked Revolutions as a anime inspired action/sci-fi film, but nothing more. And comparing them with LotR is impossible, they're so different from each other.


----------



## cozbyrt (Feb 8, 2004)

Ol'gaffer said:


> The Matrix was an ideal cinematic presentation. It combined aspects of sheer perfection essential to the one's systematical code. Reloaded was a second trial program of a higher version of the one, ergo the code, which nearly reaching sheer perfectness, concordantly could not comprehend the enigmatic data surge that was inexplicably served into it's main source. Revolutions was a binary enemaly that operated within outer reaches of the unprecedent source that concordantly opened all possible choices for the cinematic fiction that the average mind of a human body would accept. For the code, ergo, concordantly is inexplicably simply the concordant.......
> 
> 
> I don't have a clue what I'm talking about, but that's Reloaded for you.
> ...



I have no idea what you were talking about in that first paragraph either (way over my head) but I do agree with your second paragraph. The first Matrix movie was good and it was different from anything at the time. The second movie was not so good and I will not be seeing the third. As far as which one is better, by far LOTR!

Devin


----------

