Matrix Revolutions... not a rival for ROTK

[Iarhen]

Well, I just came back from seeing the Matrix: Revolutions...<P>And it SUCKED BIG TIME! God.. I was expecting so much more... Not what I just saw...<P>The thing is that all the media hype surrounding which movie was gonna make the biggest impact this season... Well, after I seeing what I saw, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is gonna blow M: Revolutions totally out of the water...<P>Im so very disappointed... My guess is that the Wachowiski brothers ran out of ideas just after finishing the first movie...<P>And even though I give them respect for a wonderful idea for a start, they are not even close to the mud beneath JRRT's feet!<P>Oh well... and to think that I preffered to see this movie instead of studying... Im so angry about it!<P>Im just gonna go to sleep watching my ROTK trailer and thinking about the good times ahead...

[Imladris]

Well, I'm sorry you disliked the movie (I thought it was excellent myself). However, I don't think that comparing Matrix and RotK is really the purpose of this forum, considering<P>1. They are two entirely different stories<BR>2. This forum is for discussing LotR.<P>But this, of course, is for the Administrators to decide.<P>Imladris

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

Yep...I couldn't stay out of this. So, Vana: There's no need to insult somebody due to his/her opinions and there's no reason to yell like that. Calm down. Everybody can't prefer same things as you. Personally I loved the first Matrix film but the second was a little disappointment. I haven't seen the third one yet but I'm looking forward to it. I agree that RotK will surely be better than Matrix Revolutions which is only good thing when thinking the possible awards that it'll "steal" from the Revolutions.

[Vana]

O.K, this may sound, well Gollumish, but that wasn't me. That was my Matrix loving friend who posted that one. She got me logged onto this website so i could ask a question, then decided to mess around on my name. My sincerest apologies on my friends behalf. Sorry!

[Ainaserkewen]

I have to agree with the original poster(slightly) There was quite a bit of media hype, but it kind of deflated at the seems...kind of disapointed myself, but then, my heart really belongs to LOTR and I hope that it's comming will "blow the matrix out of the water" Not dissing any Matrix lovers. On another note, I don't think the new Harry Potter will be any competition either.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Vana, you are responsible for any posting done with your ID, so you could have edited or deleted that post. Since writing in all caps is considered shouting on the internet and therefore bad manners, I have deleted that post. If there is something Tolkien-related to be discussed on this thread, it may continue - as long as it is done politely. However, if not, I will close and delete it. We welcome various opinions here on the Downs, but we do not condone an impolite, unfriendly tone.

[Iarhen]

Im sorry if my previous post Offended anyone, but that was not my intention. My intention when creating this new thread was to cover the surrounding media hype between the releases of the final installments of 2 of the greatest trilogies of our time, and my confidence that ROTK will be a much better movie than Revolutions. <P>That’s how I feel that the M:R release and ROTK is related… the competition that has been created by the media among those 2 movies and the 3rd installment of Harry Potter.

[Olorin_TLA]

Matrix Revolutions is one of the best films I've ever seen. And I've seen a lot of ggreat films from all "genres", backgrounds, times, etc, so don't think I say that without it having competetion to tremble at.<P>It's a CLIMAX, by the way. It's the second HALF of Reloaded, not "a sequel"...so all comments about it not devolping characters (and it does actually) more than any other film in history should remember that the situation really is desperate, they ahven't got time for chats about their favouirte type of cake.<P>It's my favourite film, fullstop (note: stories for me (and all art) have a scale, but there is a point where they just go off the scale into an infinite sky where ones which are too good to be called "worse" than eachother coexsit as the Best). And then in a month, Return of the King will take the Honour.

[lindil]

I must confess one of my first impulses after seeing Matrix: revolutions was to come and post on the Downs! So thanks Iarhen for figuring out a thin veil ot tolkieninity to justify it. <P>First things first. <P>Matrix 1-3 are movies as are PJ's adaptations. Everything said about LotR in this post refers NOT to JRRT's writings.<P>I will begin with the fact that the Matrix 1-3 has one gigantic edge over the [PJ] LotR.<P>The Wachowski brothers are not 'adapting' [i.e. distorting] anything. They have their vision of their story.<P>The W. bro's need only live up to the level of the first movie. Opinions seem to vary on this to a far greater degree than the generally accepted opinion by most folks around here that Matrix I was pretty incredible. I consider Matrix I to be a a 99.9% perfect movie. Characters, concept, script/delivery [ "MRrrr. Anderson, it seems you have been living TWO lives...] spec effects, martial arts, the whole tone and feel were as close to a perfect creation as any movie has ever acheived for this aging reviewer.<P>FotR - I have opined at considerable length in the past on this forum so the short version is... theater version B-. Extended version, A-. <P>Sadly my appreciation of the Ext. FotR has gone up after seeing TTT. For me PJ gets very high grades for casting [Elrond being a notable exception] and scenery. The additional Rivendell and Lorien scenes in the Ext version where exactly what the FotR needed. More elvishness to balance the extremely expanded fighting scenes. <P>For me the 2nd Matrix movie was great. Not as perfect as I, but both stronger [density of plot, martial arts, character development] and weaker [script, delivery]. I saw it 3 times in the theater, and would have seen it a few more had circumstances allowed.<BR>The ending left me with dozens of Matrix cosmology questions that I enjoyed reading about and discussing with friends for the entire period between II and III.<P>In stark contrast, TTT left me wondering if PJ would 'adapt' the ROtK as poorly as he did TTT.<P>TTT stands less chance of improving with an extended version I am afraid, because it's sins are not of ommision, but of alteration.<BR>Everyone knows the list of griefs which the purists like myself are so scandalized by so I will refrain. A few more Treebeard scenes and a longer battle at Helms Deep [?!?] are to my mind unlikely to do much to repair the damage to the story caused by the gratuitous scenes of Wargs, Faramir's semi-evil twin etc, etc... Again the scenery was great, but PJ trying to imrove on JRRT is almost always the weakest points of the film. However when we get to see Howe and Lee's art come to life or Gandalf or Frodo deliver excellent lines PJ's assaults on the story are thankfully, for the moment forgotten.<P>Matrix III - <P>After II, I honestly expected more fights and destruction. III had the pleasant feel of old friends or lovers saying good bye for ever.<P>Nostalgic, reflective, sacrificial.<P>Many riddles are answered, most of it makes a fair bit if sense in terms of internal consistency, and the acting was superb. <P>One particularly nice touch was the dorky kid from Animatrix finally coming into his own in horrific circumstances.<P>---<BR> Oddly enough their were previews to the ROtK at the begining, and the could hardly have picked a more boring collection of scenes to include. OF course it hardly matters because if you saw 1 and 2 you will almost certainly see 3. <P>There did not seem to be too many changes [thank God] excepting the inevitable Aragorn <I>finally</I> gets Anduril and assumes the mantle of heir Isuldur which he should have had in the first book.<P>----<P>In short even though my heart is given to the Legendarium, the Matrix movies have so far proven a more enjoyable cinematic experience. <P>I would not take matrix 1-3 to a desert island as my only fiction, I would put the Silmarillion, LotR, UT, Tad Williams Otherland series and maybe one or 2 other things ahead of it [ such as Tim Zahns 5 post Return of the Jedi Star Wars books] but as far as Movies, for me Matrix I-III are standard for all other [action] movies to [for better or worse] be measured by.<P>one further thing, ironically enough, done more faithfully, the LotR did not even need to come off as primarily 'action' movies.<P>Had the original proportions in the books been adhered to more closely LotR would have been by and large unclassifiable [at least until RotK].

[Finwe]

I was also looking forward to a bit more action in Matrix III, although I did enjoy those scenes where the dock was overrun. When I saw the RotK trailer at the beginning, I literally squeaked, and started quoting all the lines along with the actors. (Yes, that is the measure of my obsession! ) I really didn't have too high expectations of Matrix III, so I wasn't really disappointed. Although, I will have very high expectations of RotK, and I'm sure that PJ won't let us down (at least, he won't too much!).

[HCIsland]

Considering that Revolutions was shot at the same time as Reloaded, I don't see how people should have expected these films to be much different. Essentially, they are the same film split into two parts. I suspect those that enjoyed Reloaded will enjoy Revolutions and vice-versa.<P>H.C.

[Eurytus]

To me the first Matrix is an almost perfect film. That is not to say that it is one of the best films of all time, just that it achieves exactly what it sets out to do. The story arc is weighted to perfection.<P>For that reason the Matrix sequels have been a grave disappointment to me. Whilst not the worst sequel of all time (in terms of drop in quality Highlander II and Jaws IV take the grand prize), they did represent a big drop in quality over the first film. For me the flaws are;<BR>(ps this addresses Matrix Reloaded only at this point)<P>Lack of a sense of danger. Apart from the fight between Trinity and the Agent there was no danger at all. I never felt Neo was threatened and suddenly you have the near-ludicrous scene of Morpheus battling with loads of Smith clones, when one was more than sufficient to kick his *** in the first film.<P>The fights themselves? Well no sense of inertia and therefore it just seemed like they were dancing. (this can be a common flaw in wire-fu). See Bruce Lee films for how martial arts fights should be done and look brutal. Even Steven Seagal films have more realistic fights.<P>The Burly Brawl, quite apart from feeling the need for a fight to have an 'official' name it continues the tendency for the name of bits of the film to basically sound like Video Games levels. (Burly Brawl, the Highway Chase etc). Also, why didn't Neo immediately fly away when things got bad? Oh yeah, it looked cool.<P>Suddenly Neo has lost the ability to simply 'explode' Agents and has to pose about with kung fu. He seemingly no longer needs to dodge bullets but does need to dodge fists??<P>Far too much bull****-speak. Anyone who has seen the Sphinx in the movie Mystery Men will know what I mean here.<P>The Zion Rave. Nothing further needs to be said here.<P>And the film does not deal with what is to me the really interesting question. If you finally succeeded in freeing everyone wouldn't the majority lynch you for it. What actually is the problem with being in the matrix?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

This thread is on the brink of closure. Any posts which do not manage to include something LotR or Tolkien-related will be deleted. This is <B>not</B> a Matrix forum! If you wish to discuss the movie, fine, but if you do so on <B>this</B> forum (I'm quite sure there are fora out there for Matrix fans), it must be related to the theme of this site.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

For a film that was meant to be a climax, Revolutions came off like a huge anticlimax.<P>Return of the King, however, cannot be anything but one of the most amazing climaxes in cinematic history. Yes, yes, I guess I'll have to wait until I actually see RotK, but signs are that the Matrix's final two films will prove to be a very lightweight comparison to Peter Jackson's baby.<P>As for the Oscars, who is seriously still in doubt as to who will win? I will eat my hat if Jackson doesn't win The Big Two.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

I will eat my hat if Jackson doesn't win The Big Two. I can eat your hat too. :D Seriously, are there any movies that would beat RotK? First I was little worried about Matrix Revolutions that it would shadow the great triumph of RotK but... Nah, I don't think so!

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Seriously, are there any movies that would beat RotK? First I was little worried about M:Revolutions that it would shadow the great triumph of RotK but...nah, I don't think so! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well neither Reloaded nor Revolutions was ever considered serious contenders for any big Oscars. As for competition, there's still lots coming. A front runner may be Peter Weir's Master and Commander with Oscar magnet Russell Crowe. That's out soon.<P>H.C.

[Failivrin]

i thought matri was pretty good and reloaded was rubbish and then today i saw revolutions and i htought it was very good. the acting is good, the music fits and it had more of a plot than eh second one. i never bought into teh matrix hype (i only saw the original in about march) so perhaps i have the view of an un-matrixy person.<P>but of course, it will be no competion for ROTK.<P>as for the publicity, i only ever saw two adverts for it and i never saw a trailer. i saw much more for the reloaded dvd.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

<P>Once again, this forum is for discussion of the movies based on Tolkien's books. If you wish to compare the Matrix and Middle-Earth, talk about the similarities of Neo's and Frodo's roles, or debate the difference between Trinity and Arwen, go ahead! That could be very interesting. But if you only want to talk about the Matrix movie, please do so on a Matrix forum. Thanks.

[Iarhen]

Im sorry, Estelyn T., but the fact that we are comparing the media hype and the expectatives that both Matrix Revolutions adn ROTK have created, and most importantly, their competition as the end of the year's biggest movie, is a common ground for both movies.<P>If we are discussing the movie, we dont necessarily have to focus on the characters or the plot, but also in the special effects, and like in this case, the media hype surrounding the movies and the media created competition among ROTK and MRvls

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I can live with that, Iarhen, but there are several posts which discuss only Matrix with no connection to LotR. I was not trying to restrict the subjects, but rather to show that there has to be some relation to our Tolkien board.

[ArathorofBarahir]

Personally I can't stand any of the Matrix films and think that pale in comparision to the Lord of the Rings movies.

[Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1]

I saw Revolutions today...it was weird. Agent Elrond was great...but Trinity took too long to die, and seemingly without any pain...and I was wondering by the end. What is 'real'? That real world is still a creation of the Architect. So it can't be really 'real', can it? A Matrix within a Matrix perhaps?<P>Well, at any rate LOTR is much less confusing, and the films have had better pacing. M:R constantly alternated between mind-numbingly slow (ie all the dialogue, especially from Morpheus...) and extraordinarily fast and way too many flashing lights. Like the flickering thing where Neo is blinded...argh!<BR>But as for comparing Trinity to Arwen...I personally think Trinity shows the power of love much more than Arwen ever did...she just sat around and waited in hope. Mind you, being around 6000 years ago, you could hardly expect her to go along and fight. But then Éowyn did...ah well, I'm confusing myself...But on the other hand, Trinity went every step of the way to help Neo until she died.<BR>As for Frodo and Neo...well both are kind of sacrificing themselves, aren't they? Neo allowed himself to turn into Agent Elrond and exploded himself to destry them all. (Well that's what it looked like to me!) Frodo gave up any real chance of comfort and contentment so that the Shire might be left alone.

[Olorin_TLA]

Giant spoielrs above. Like, Unicron sized. and nastier.

[Iarhen]

I dont think we can compare Arwen and Trinity because, I think, Trinity has a bigger and more active role. In the books, we hear about Arwen a couple of times and only in peaceful ones... <P>And in the movie, well, all the fighting is reserved for men. Trintiy has a more active role... Since she is one of the few ones that can truly fight against the Matrix...<P>But even in that arena, Trinity was killed by an agent and got her *** kicked several times when facing one. On the other hand, in the movie, when Arwen faces 8 of the 9 nazgul, she kicks their asses (considering the Nazgul as agents-alike).<P>Both characters are really great, with all their complexities...<P>But I have to correct you in one thing. Arwen does give her life up for Aragorn by becoming human! <P>And, in the movie, she gives Aragorn encouragement when he needs it most (for example, after the warg battle, when he is in the river, and Arwen "resurrects" him from afar), and when she encourages him to face his destiny, reassuring him that he will win where Isildur failed...

[lindil]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Return of the King, however, cannot be anything but one of the most amazing climaxes in cinematic history. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well considering that PJ is only batting 5oo [by my standards at least] he could just as easily spoil RotK in the way he did with much of TTT. Of course I value the possibility of a mostly good LotR movie more than the justice that would be justifiably meted out if PJ's editorializing and rewriting of the story was called on the carpet and RotK soundly denounced by 'purist' fan and critic alike. <P>Imagine if Denethor is lame, or 'Faramir' never becomes Faramir, or the whole Aragorn/Eowyn thing is botched. PJ has shown himself ='ly capable of doing LotR justice, and of confirming JRRT's stated fears of how a movie version could seriously tarnish LotR.<P>I don't flinch when reading LotR.<P>I would rather not do it when watching it either.

[the phantom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> in the movie, when Arwen faces 8 of the 9 nazgul, she kicks their asses <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>When did that happen? I seem to remember Arwen running from them until she got safely across her daddy's river (which swept them away).<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In stark contrast, TTT left me wondering if PJ would 'adapt' the ROtK as poorly as he did TTT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> he could just as easily spoil RotK in the way he did with much of TTT <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No arguments here, Lindil. I'm worried about the same thing. TTT had some great moments (the music really helped) but it wasn't nearly as good as FOTR. But perhaps I say that because I'm a fan of the books. Maybe people who've never read the books thought it was great, after all they wouldn't be complaining about alterations since they would be unaware that any were made.<P>FOTR is probably my favorite movie, but I would rank TTT behind the Matrix movies (and some others).<P>It will all come down to ROTK. If it's awesome then LOTR will be my favorite. If PJ messes with it like he did TTT then I'll rank the Matrix trilogy higher.<P>(but I don't think either one can beat Star Wars )

[lindil]

I am much in agreement with you Phantom, but TTT was such a pitiful revision imo, and the Matrix was so incredibly well done, that RotK will have to be essentially perfect [and I will have to skip several especially poor TTT scenes when I watch it] for LotR to surpass The matrix.<P>Of course imo The Legendarium as a [fragmented] whole far surpasses any other work of Co-Creation in Film or text. Tolkien was the master, and the further PJ strays from the story as given, the further away from 'Truth' the movies seem to land.<P>As for the Star Wars movies, I have come to far prefer the many dozens of books describing the post RotJ period. There were some duds, but the characters are far more fleshed out and we get to see Han, Luke and Leia marry, raise kids, suffer many and indeed the most tragic of wounds, and indeed, we get to follow them [through the eyes of many different writers] far closer than we ever see the entiire life of anyone in the Legendarium [the Hapless Turin may be an exception.]<P>But these are for me essentially mind candy, and I have imbalanced my delicte [mental] spleen on more than one occasion by over consumption. Rarely so with Tolkien, with him their is Fiber, enzymes, minerals and a host of other balanced 'nutrients'.

[HCIsland]

Sorry but other than the pretty pictures and an interesting concept, the latest two matrix movies have nothing to offer. Reloaded was at least some fun (especially the freeway chase) but Revolutions was just flat.<P>Revolutions spoilers coming.<P>*<BR>*<BR>*<BR>*<BR>*<BR>*<BR>*<BR>*<BR>*<BR>*<BR>*<P>It's pretty sad when the two main characters die and the audience is left completely dry eyed. There wasn't a single character I could care about at the end and when that happens, how the hell could you care about the plot. They could have wiped out Zion and I would have left the theatre feeling pretty much the same.<P>H.C.<p>[ November 12, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1]

Ok, firstly, I'm very sorry, I forgot to warn you about the spoilers!!! Oops... <P>Oh, HC, my friend was blubbing like a baby when...um...the first main character died. Can't see why, personally...no evident pain, extraordinarily long death scene...rather ridiculous really...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But I have to correct you in one thing. Arwen does give her life up for Aragorn by becoming human! <P>And, in the movie, she gives Aragorn encouragement when he needs it most (for example, after the warg battle, when he is in the river, and Arwen "resurrects" him from afar), and when she encourages him to face his destiny, reassuring him that he will win where Isildur failed...<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oops...somehow I forgot those minor details!!!<BR>And as for Aragorn needing encouragement, did he need it in the books? I only recall him feeling slightly lost at that point that Gandalf pointed out the white tree seedling growing.

[Imladris]

Quoted Matrix Revolutions spoiler:<BR>*<BR>*<BR>*<BR>*<BR>*<BR>*<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It's pretty sad when the two main characters die and the audience is left completely dry eyed. There wasn't a single character I could care about at the end and when that happens, how the hell could you care about the plot. They could have wiped out Zion and I would have left the theatre feeling pretty much the same.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Maybe dry eyed for you, but I cried my eyes out when Trinity dies and Neo. <P>In a way, LotR and Matrix are very similiar films: they have a bad guy that wants to take over the entire and then they have a good guy that destroys the bad guy (though I'm trying to decide if Aragorn or Frodo would more compare with Neo). Frodo basically gives up his life for Middle-earth, the sacrifice of which culminates in his going back to the Valinor. <P>However you might disagree about character developement and plot (which, I for one, think is interesting), the stories are telling the same story of nobility, sacrifice, and selfless love. <P>That offers a lot, to me.

[lindil]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Sorry but other than the pretty pictures and an interesting concept, the latest two matrix movies have nothing to offer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>HC Island, phrasing reviews and critiques etc, in the subjective [as in 'I think', 'imo', 'I feel' etc.] has the rather ironic effect of being more objective, because one is conciously stating one's <I>opinion</I>.<P>The Matrix movies[or any other art] have to offer whatever can link with your soul and your perceptions and understanding. Phrasing the above statment as a provable and universally recognizable fact is not too wise. IMO <P>And remember folks, this thread only continues in Lady Estelyn's good graces by being relevant to Tolkien. Hardly too much to ask at a Tolkien Board.

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, I have not seen Matrix Revolutions (although now I know what happens ), and I only recently saw Reloaded on DVD. And it left me pretty cold, I have to say. It had been a long time since I saw the first Matrix film (which I found to be reasonably enjoyable), and I found the first 20 minutes of Reloaded utterly confusing, that is until I was able to piece together my memory of the plot from the first film. Then I had to watch those first 20 minutes again. It was hardly welcoming to the unitiated. And basically, while I can appreciate the action sequences and the special effects, I just don't "get" the Matrix films.<P>As for the LotR films, well they have a head start for me, since I have been a fan of the books for many years. And, after some intial readjustment, I find myself perfectly able to separate the story told in the films from that told in the books, and enjoy both for what they are. To me, these films are head and shoulders above the Matrix films (well, the two that I have seen).<P>That is my personal opinion, and many of the recent posts on this topic are personal opinion too. But the original question invited opinions on whether the latest Matrix film will surpass RotK at the Box Office.<P>And my opinion on this (based on the films that I have seen) is that RotK will blow Matrix Revolutions away. It seems to me that the LotR films have far more mass appeal than the Matrix films, which have more of a "cult" feel to them. Yes, they look good, but I believe (and this is backed up by reviews that I have read) that the story is just too impenetrable (if indeed there really is any deeper meaning to it than straight action) to appeal to a wide section of the film-going audience. Whereas the LotR films look good as well as having a storyline which is basically pretty simple, most of the complexities of the books having been "ironed out". And while this may upset the book purists, I believe that it does make the films far more accessible to a wider range of people. That is not to label film audiences as thick, but simply to say that I think that most filmgoers (and I include myself here) expect to be far less challenged (in terms of the complexity of the storyline) by their films than by their books.<P>And so, although I suppose that I am biased to a degree, I do see RotK as being a far more successful Box Office (and critical) hit than Matrix Revolutions, just as TTT was more successful than Reloaded.

[Imladris]

If it is good, RotK will be better than Revolutions (of course the fact that I prefer LotR to Matrix has nothing to do with this). I do prefer Lord of the Rings because I think it has more heart, more substance, more depth...I don't know, more something. Unless PJ screws up RotK which I sincerely doubt for some reason, it will be better in a different way than Revolutions.

[Eowyn:Lady of Rohan]

I must disagree with you Imladris. PJ won't mess up on ROTK. Firstly, he made the film in a year and a half. Matrix had to wait for Reloaded and Revolutions. I've seen Reloaded and it wasn't that great. I doubt that Revolutions is any better. Matrix doesn't really have a good storyline. Sure, it's about a guy that's the "savior" of all human race, but it's only skin deep. I know ROTK will leave Matrix Revolutions in the dust. I've seen the preview for ROTK and I'm ready to see it. It's going to be better. I know it.<P>[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Eowyn:Lady of Rohan ]<p>[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Eowyn:Lady of Rohan ]

[Imladris]

First of all, I never said that RotK wouldn't be good. I said that I doubted PJ would screw it up. Just because he made it in a year and a half doesn't just make it good -- though it does make it more likely that it will be good.<P>As for Neo being the saviour of the human race? He's no more saviour of man than Aragorn is of Middle-earth. They are both figure heads. Granted, Neo is not becoming a king and becoming the leader of his people, but they are both leading a people against a common enemy who is growing stronger (i.e Sauron and Agent Smith), which is more than just skin deep. Matrix is different, just like LotR is different. They both have different and fresh takes on a very common story theme: they both tell stories of nobility and sacrifice (also more than just skin deep). I'm not quite sure what people mean when they say Matrix fell flat, so I don't even know if I'm adressing the point (so forgive me all if I'm just babbling on), but that doesn't change the kernel of either stories.<P>LotR is better than Matrix for a few reasons which I won't go into now because I believe that it has been stated before. However, LotR isn't king and Matrix isn't dirt. They are both grand epics with a story with heart/morals/bravery/nobility to tell. <P>(I hope I haven't gone off topic...if I have, my apoligies to the mods)

[lindil]

Imladris posted: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I hope I haven't gone off topic...if I have, my apoligies to the mods <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If I understand the original impulse of the thread aright, it was not merely to explore and catalog box office numbers but to compare the stories themselves.<P>If I <I>am</I> reading too much into the first post, then perhaps a new 'Matrix/LotR comparisons' thread should be opened in the place of this one, as this is obviously a topic of value, interest, and legitimate forum inquiry to many of us here.<p>[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Neo died? I must have missed that.<P>As for the box office, I think The Return of the King will probably take more cash than either one of the first two Lord of the Rings films. That means it will probably take about a hundred times more than the Matrix film.

[kittiegirl]

Yeah, I agree.<P>Well, as much as I love the Matrix(sig)the first film was the best.<BR>And it's all a matter of opinion about if Revolutions suked or not.<BR>If you want to talk about things besides LoTR, then go to another board.<BR>I'm registered on at least 7 others, and i go on them when I get tired of talking about LOTR and need a break.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If I understand the original impulse of the thread aright, it was not merely to explore and catalog box office numbers but to compare the stories themselves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Lindil, I agree, and I apolgise if my post gave the impression that I thought that this thread was just about the relative success of the films at the Box Office. As I am not really into the Matrix films, comparing them with the LotR films is not something that iterests me. But it seems to me that it is a perfectly valid discussion to have on this thread.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As for the box office, I think The Return of the King will probably take more cash than either one of the first two Lord of the Rings films. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree with you here, Eomer. I believe that TTT beat Matrix Reloaded, but that Matrix Revolutions has just trumped TTT. On that basis, I would expect RotK to outsell Revolutions.

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As for the box office, I think The Return of the King will probably take more cash than either one of the first two Lord of the Rings films. That means it will probably take about a hundred times more than the Matrix film.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I agree with the first part. But even if you said ten times as much money you would be widely exagerating.<BR>It will be doing marvously if it takes twice what Revolutions does.

[the phantom]

I doubt that ROTK will take in a hundred times more than the Matrix film. I read in the paper yesterday that Revolutions was beating TTT (not in the US but overall around the world). This is from an article I read-<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The final instalment in the sci-fi Matrix movie trilogy topped the North American box office and grossed a revolutionary $US204 million worldwide through its first weekend, making it the biggest global film opening of all time, Warner Bros studio reported. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>That's quite impressive (TTT made about $188 million through the same number of days). Obviously there's a lot of people that love The Matrix.

[salix]

Actually I read in my paper that Matrix Revolutions had made less money in the first 4 days than Reloaded had in it's first 4 days. I also have seen Revolutions, and I found that they copped out quite a bit on the plotline. My dad actually had a rather intricate theory, and then the movie turned out to be less complicated than Amistad. (I recently watched both, one in Social Class) I really hope that ROTK will be a lot better than Revolutions, since I've noticed a trend in the LOTR movies. The top 250 movies on <A HREF="http://www.imdb.com" TARGET=_blank>IMDb</A> had TTT at number 4, while FOTR was at number 8. Also an <A HREF="http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2003-11-03" TARGET=_blank>IMDb poll</A> on Nov. 3 asked which December movie people were most looking forward to, with ROTK coming in first out of 18 with 70.9%. I think that the movie will attract a lot more people than TTT just because it's the end of the trilogy, and thus a lot of people who liked the books, but don't like 3 part films will watch the first two soon before going to see ROTK. I also think that ROTK is going to have a very hard time being worse than Revolutions because of the sybolism already in the text, and PJ (hopefully) trying his best not to change the story too much. <P>One last note on the Matrix franchise; I really liked the original Matrix for the meanings, hidden or not, but I found that the next two movies were really short on plot line. the Lord of the Rings franchise so far seems to have (mostly) kept up it's standard. Okay, done my rant.

[kittiegirl]

Right.<BR>I also agree that the first Matrix was the best one.<BR>I really hope that PJ doesn't change the story line too much, otherwise I will sure him.<BR>Nah, just kidding.

[Finnguala]

I haven't seen Matrix Revolutions yet, but I don't think it's going to be better than RotK. And actually, who cares if it is? :P

[the phantom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And actually, who cares if it is? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Members of Tolkien fan-sites.

[kittiegirl]

*Nods*<BR>Some of us care at least, including myself.

[lindil]

Well, I thought I would begin to wrap up my increasingly sad thoughts re: 'RotK' by returning to this thread of comparison.<P>I am sure I will be in the minority, perhaps even a lone voice, but for me I felt much better walking out of the theatre after Revolutions than 'RotK'.<P>Why? Do I love the Matrix films more than the writings of M-E in general? Hardly. But the Matrix, was true to itself. For me there was no way, having read LotR/Silm and co. virtually every year since 1976 <B>not to experience the films through the 'matrix' of the books</B>. <P>That others can acheive this feat is clearly a plus for them, and I do not begrudge it to them [though I have already been attacked here for my 'lack of appreciation'] I can see how many who have enjoyed the Books could also enjoy the movies, but excepting the Extended FotR, the 3 Theatrical releases and the Ext TTT are all to close and yet to far from the incredible and at times glorious writings that have come to have such a warm and comforting place in my heart.<P>PJ's films do at times enhance that for me [Rivendell and Lothlorien and a few other odd moments, visualizing Minas Tirith for instance], but far too often PJ gets in the way of the masterful tale and substitutes his own 'hollywood accceptable' version.<P>In reality most of what I love about the films is the work of Alan Lee and John Howe.<BR>Perhaps a better stategy for me will be to pick my scenes judiciously and keep the sound down most of the time. <P><BR>I will avoid the litany of scene breakdowns as that has been done elsewhere, but just wanted to put on record that when I want to sit back and have a great full-scale cinematic experience at home, I will be reaching for The Matrix and co..<P>When I want to enter M-E, it is off to the Bookshelf.<P>Nice try PJ, but I can clearly see why<BR>CJRT won't let you anywhere near <I>The Hobbit</I>.<p>[ 10:38 AM December 21, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Elfchick7]

I have Rotk, in fact I went to trilogy tuesday, and I felt that it was very well done. I know that PJ was trying to add his ouch with the paths of the dead and that that was a little much. I was also upset about *Warning Spoiler* He cut out the house of healing. There were a few changes but that is necessary for a movie to keep the audience stuck in it. You must remember that you cannot do the same thing in a movie as you can in a book. As for Matrix Revalutions: Though I have not seen it and don't intent to, my cousin, who loves the Tolkien stories, did. Now let me explain to you that my cousin hates Russel Crow's movies, in fact the only one she would see was Gladiator, and after she saw Revolutions, she was sooooo dissapointed that she felt even a russel crow movie would be better than this. Savi?

[Iris Alantiel]

Maybe this is just the lifelong Tolkien fan in me talking, but I just found the characters much easier to relate to in LotR than in the last two Matrix movies. As for the plot, it was infinitely easier to understand in LotR. <P>I loved the first Matrix movie and I was looking forward to the sequels, but I was extremely disappointed. I thought they were confusing and pretty uninteresting, and by the third one I really didn't care too much about any of the characters at all. (WARNING: SPOILER AHEAD.) In the first movie, and even the second one to some extent, Trinity was one of my favourite characters, but her death scene was so drawn out, I was like, "Get on with it already". <P>Sure, LotR has its flaws (the movie, of course), and I'm not just talking about points where they altered the books. I'm more referring to things like Gimli's rather inconsistent personality over the course of the three movies, and their failure to explain exactly what happened to Éowyn's mysteriously disappearing love for Aragorn (although I still have hope for the EE). But at least the trilogy is overall relatively coherent and they used devices that made you actually care about the characters most of the time. <P>But like I said, that could just be because I already knew and loved the characters for most of my life. So if I've said anything that bothers or offends anyone, feel free to disregard: I'm probably biased anyway.

[Imladris]

Let's put it this way:<P>For me LotR (both book and movie) is much deeper than the Matrix. LotR (the extended editions at least) is better than Matrix in character developement and plot. To me, PJ did a pretty darn good job converting the books to films and I can't blame him for skipping some things. If he didn't the movie would be boring (also, he is limited about how long he can make them: critics were complaining about three hours)<P>At least LotR knows what religion it is promoting, which is a big difference to the mish mash of the Matrix. At least PJ kept the "christian-ness" of the books of Tolkien. If he had slashed that, then the films would be a disappointment. <P>And LotR was <I> clean </I> unlike Reloaded. All these reasons make the movie LotR better than the Matrix.

[lindil]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And LotR was clean unlike Reloaded.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>A good point there, though I just whiz past the bedroom/rave scene with my handy remote...Just like I do with the Wargs and 'Aragorn' and 'Arwen's' dream tryst.<p>[ 1:16 PM December 24, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Jjudvven]

Exactly! I lost the DVD skip scene function! That's exactly what I did yesterday while watching it. <P>Of course the Matrix can't hardly compare to the LotR, so I don't know why anyone is bothering. Revolutions was a good movie, but I don't think anything can come even close to the RotK.

[HCIsland]

Ah, yes the rave scene.<P>You know the sex between Neo and Trinity didn't bother me, but I thought the rave was ridiculous. This was the portion of the movie were they were showing us what they were fighting to preserve and all they could come up with were grinding, bare-chested, supermodels.<P>Compare that Jackson's portrayal of The Shire or even the women and children in Helm's Deep.<P>H.C.

[lindil]

yes, but the women and children of the shire and Helm's Deep were not forced to live in a cave their whole lives now where they? You might start bouncing off the walls to after a decade or so of no sunlight... <P>Also, personally I find the women and childern of the shire or Rohan no less worth saving intrinsically than those of Zion. <P>As for <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Of course the Matrix can't hardly compare to the LotR, so I don't know why anyone is bothering. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jjudvven, some people [myself for one] prefer a less than perfect movie [or any form of art] that is <I>true to itself</I> and it's aims, than a greater work which is adapted by lesser writers and modified based on the supposed concerns of Hollywood and the perceived necessity to re-arrarnge masterful plotlines and characterizations to fit the needs of 3-4 hour movies. <P>Iris Alantiel posted: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As for the plot, it was infinitely easier to understand in LotR. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>More or less true, though I had numerous queries from friends who had not read the books as to the relationships between Saruman, Sauron and the Ringwraiths - for some these points of realtion were lost amid all the action. <P>As for the complexity of the Matrix especially reloaded, that was wonderful! A movie that really could have ended up a dozen different ways! <BR>Then again that is exactly what a lot of us feared from PJ as well .<P>Personally I loved the complexity of the matrix and the ferriting out of so many nuances, just like I love it in the Legendarium. The more complex the better I say!<P>Again I do not at all believe that since <B>I</B> find the matrix films more enjoyable than 'TTT' and 'RotK' then everyone else should, this particular paradox is a result of my own experience with the books over 25 or so years and and my own appreciation of the brilliance of the W. brothers [esp in #1].<P>Imladris posted: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> At least LotR knows what religion it is promoting, which is a big difference to the mish mash of the Matrix. At least PJ kept the "christian-ness" of the books of Tolkien. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Hmm... I noticed that 'Gandalf' omitted any reference to the Valar [archangels] during the coronation, and Faramir's saying grace before a meal was axed. Just what Christianness did you see in the 'LotR' movies?<P>Perhaps it was Shadowfax the sentient horse killing Denethor? <P>As for the Matrix using a distinctly unique melange of religious and philosophical themes and references, it is true, but do not forget that the entirity of the Legendarium is built far more upon references and recastings of pagan literature than any direct reliance on Christianity. Tolkien uses a radical amount of restraint in pointing to Christ in the entirety of the Legendarium with the exception of one instance: The Athrabeth in Morgoth's Ring [HoM-E x]. So I really do not see any way that the movie'LotR' is any more Christian than the Matrix. Was not the final scene of Neo [after he has sacrifieced himself for the temoral salvation of the rest of humanity] him being hauled off by the machines with his body/arms outstretched as if crucified? <P>Finally, had the movies been more faithful to the books would my appraisal be otherwise? You bet.<p>[ 1:33 PM December 24, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Lathriel]

Personally for me the Matrix will NEVER EVER beat LOTR. For one I believe that the Matrix storyline has dissapeared behind a heavy layer of special affects.<BR>If you have read the LOTR over and over then you should realize there is much more to it than the Matrix. LOTR as a story took 18 years to write. I don't think the Matrix storyline took that long.<BR>Anyway you will probably have guessed I am Anti-Matrix. Just really can't stand it.

[Imladris]

Oh, how I love a good debate! Except when my stupid computer freezes and I loose my post in progress…<P>Okay. Lindil asked me this:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Just what Christianness did you see in the 'LotR' movies? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Remember that scene in Moria, and Gandalf is telling Frodo not to be too eager to deal out death and judgment because the very wise cannot see all ends and that he was meant to have the Ring? These are very clear statements of the sovereignty of a God (even PJ admitted along with Fran and the others that this was a very Christian statement on the commentary of the EE). <BR>As for you’ve insulting statement:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Perhaps it was Shadowfax the sentient horse killing Denethor? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I fail to see how that is even remotely concerned with Christianity. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Legendarium is built far more upon references and recastings of pagan literature than any direct reliance on Christianity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am quite aware that Tolkien based many of his writings upon Norse myths (Beowulf and others), but that does not mean that he included the numerous pagan gods, as you implied here: I have only read the first chapter of the Sil, but I have read from others on this very forum that there is only one God in Tolkien’s world: Illuvitar and that his Valar are the angels. That in and of itself (as well as the description of the creation of ME) is Christian. Also, Tolkien was a very faithful Catholic, so why would he promote pagan gods?<P><BR>Throughout the entire books and movies, there are definite Christian themes that PJ portrays in the movies. The themes of self sacrifice (primary in the books) are all portrayed in the movies. The fight to destroy evil at whatever cost is also portrayed in the movies as it was in the books. All of these are Christian themes, and all of them were portrayed in the movies. I did not say that “Christ” or that the “God of the Bible” were referred to in either books or movies. I said that the “Christian-ness” of the books were faithfully portrayed on screen. I hope I have proved my point. <P>As for the lack of Faramir’s prayer I am at a loss to know what you are referring to. The only thing that I find is this:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Before they ate, Faramir and all his men turned and faced west in a moment of silence. … “So we always do,” he said, as they sat down: “we look towards Numenor that was, and beyond to Elvenhome that is, and to that which is beyond Elvenhome and will ever be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That doesn’t seem like a prayer to me. Also, very confusing to portray on film.<P>Prayer: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> A reverent petition made to God, a god, or another object of worship. <BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So, if there wasn’t a prayer in the book, why should there be one in the film.<P>As for Gandalf’s reference of the Valar at the coronation, we don’t know if that will be in there since the EE hasn’t come out yet. I notice that you decided to ignore Arwen’s references to the Valar. <P>You see, the clincher with me is this: in the Matrix, there are references to Christianity, ancient mythology, Tauism (sp?), Buddhism, and a bunch of others that I don't even recognize. In LotR, there is only one thing they are promoting: Christianity and its themes. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So I really do not see any way that the movie'LotR' is any more Christian than the Matrix. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I never said that. I said that LotR knows which religion it is promoting. Basically, Matrix and LotR have the same themes: a Christ figure saving their people, self sacrifice, etc. But LotR does not have the mish mash that Matrix has and that mish mash cancels out the Christianity. <P>Mods, I ask your forgiveness if this is off topic. However, he asked me to prove the Christianity of the film to you and the fact that this film knows which religion it is promoting in contrast to the Matrix and I hope I have.<p>[ 4:18 AM December 28, 2003: Message edited by: Imladris ]

[lindil]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you have read the LOTR over and over then you should realize there is much more to it than the Matrix. LOTR as a story took 18 years to write. I don't think the Matrix storyline took that long. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Lathriel, your above quote illustrates my point exactly. The books are far superior to the Matrix, I agree wholeheartedly. <B>But</B> you seem to have missed my point [assuming you were responding to, or referencing my above comments...] that I am <B>drawing a sharp distinction</B> between PJ's 'LotR' and the Books.<P>Imladris, alot of points, so I will try and cover them one by one [all quotes are I.'s]:<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Remember that scene in Moria, and Gandalf is telling Frodo not to be too eager to deal out death and judgment because the very wise cannot see all ends and that he was meant to have the Ring? These are very clear statements of the sovereignty of a God <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, I bet you Burrahobbit could justify an ethical moralism without deity, but since he may well not be following this thread...<P>... I tend to believe that an implicit underlying moral structure both in RL and in M-E is indicitave of a supreme Creator, I do not think the above sentence comes close to proving it, PJ and co's statements aside. They may have a very low threshold for what qualifies as religious, who can say, with out a far more detailed statement. I suppose 'meant' is the word catching your eye. It does point to someone <I>meaning</I> it to happen, but one better have one's thinking cap on pretty tight to draw the appropriate conclusion before you are spun off into the next lines and scene...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As for you’ve insulting statement:<P> " Perhaps it was Shadowfax the sentient horse killing Denethor? ""<P>I fail to see how that is even remotely concerned with Christianity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Me too! How on earth PJ thought that was consistent with Tolkien in anyway shape or form will remain a mystery till the EE perhaps or maybe forever. As this already has it's own thread I will not elaborate4 here, but many folks were bothered by this who are othewise very pro PJ.<P>It was brought up becuase I considered it a case where PJ was abandoning the morality of the books, having Shadowfax [who is supposed to be so closely attuned to G. that G. takes him to Valinor] kicking Denthor back onto the pyre. Lord have mercy. Feel free to elaborate on the insult...or not.<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I am quite aware that Tolkien based many of his writings upon Norse myths (Beowulf and others), but that does not mean that he included the numerous pagan gods, as you implied here: I have only read the first chapter of the Sil, but I have read from others on this very forum that there is only one God in Tolkien’s world: Illuvitar and that his Valar are the angels. That in and of itself (as well as the description of the creation of ME) is Christian. Also, Tolkien was a very faithful Catholic, so why would he promote pagan gods? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I never said he promoted Pagan gods, I said M-E recast and recycled much of pagan <I>literature</I>. The Valar, as you will discover when you finish reading the Silmarillion , Lost Tales and Morgoth's Ring [in particular] are a sort of hybrid between Classical Pagan 'gods' [Not God or Iluvatar] and Angels. If you were to read the biblical and Christian references re: angels and them compare it with Tolkiens Valar, you would [ I think] have to agree that by and large they much more closely resemble the pagan 'gods'. The essential difference is that the Valar are conciously subservient to Eru/God, whereas most mythological deities are more or less free-agents. The Valar are however depicted as acting and feeling and having responsibilities far closer to 'gods' than anything the Bible or the Fathers and Saints have described as Angelic. See especially Pseudo Dionysios the Aeropagite for the most detailed classical treatment in Christianity of Angels.<P>By and large though, JRRT was interested in doing a massive salvage job on the pagan and sem- pagan myths of Northern Europe. He was not trying to in any <I>obvious</I> way promote Christianity. Of course most people [especially Christians, and myself included] tend to believe that his subtle work of creating a pre-Christian mythology and epic were not only successful point, by there very eliptical omissions and hints point to Christianity [ you could argue much the same for it pointing to any form of Monotheism I think, unless you take the specific reference of Finrod to the inevitable incarnation of God in the Athrabeth which I mentioned earlier].<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Throughout the entire books and movies, there are definite Christian themes that PJ portrays in the movies. The themes of self sacrifice (primary in the books) are all portrayed in the movies. The fight to destroy evil at whatever cost is also portrayed in the movies as it was in the books. All of these are Christian themes, and all of them were portrayed in the movies. I did not say that “Christ” or that the “God of the Bible” were referred to in either books or movies. I said that the “Christian-ness” of the books were faithfully portrayed on screen. I hope I have proved my point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sorry, to me at least Imladris you proved nothing so far [there a couple of points I will conced in a bit]. I do not see self-sacrifice as any more of a Christian concept than a Taoist or Buddhist [to name a couple I am familiar with].<P>If you like I can provide some direct qoutes from Buddhist and Taoist texts which pre-date Christ, but for now, I will leave you with the easily researched assertion. <P>Christianity has few novel [read: exclusive] moral or psychological concepts. What is unique about it, is an assertion that God became flesh/fully human in order to repair the effects of the Fall for those who would follow Him,, and that Christ founded a community and instituted Sacraments [or as the Orthodox refer to them as Mysteries]to bind one closer to Truth/Christ. This alone in my opinion [and many practical matters flowing therefrom] are what are unique about Christianity, not it's moral and ethical teachings. these are by and large common property of all of the major religions.<P>None of the above factors in any way makes it into PJ's 'LotR'. None. Yes bits of dialogue survive unmolested here and there, especially Gandalf's [which I have heard Ian had to fight for ] and they often reflect JRRT's moral outlook, but the subtlty and beauty of presentation are lost amidst the many characteratures of characters [Gimli, the fighting Coucil of Elrond, the gluttonus Denethor, Gandalf hitting Denthor and Pippin with his staff, etc] the very fabric upon which JRRT's imbedded message pointing ever so softly to Christ has been [imo] severly distorted. I would be suprised to encounter a person who came to Christ through the Movies, [although I am sure it will happen at least once!] wheras the forums are full of many people [myself included] who count JRRT's writings, as one of the main factors in their conversion. <P>If you feel on a gut or artistic level PJ captured that aspect of the story for you, then I will not try and disuade you of your experience. For me however, virtually all of the more delicate aspects [other than something of the Elves and some little bit Gandalf's spirit, prior to his entry into Gondor] was pretty much obliterated by the recasting of the tale to meet [as so many here bravely justify PJ] the demands of Hollywoood and the 'average' moviegoer.<P>re: Faramir's grace before the meal at Henneth Annun:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That doesn’t seem like a prayer to me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, JRRT in the fith footnote to Letter 153 calls the above referenced comments of Faramirs' 'grace at meat'. You may not take it as a prayer, but JRRT certainly did.<P>It is clearly a ritual act, as TTT says it 'was always done'.<P>To fully understand the religious nature of the reference, one should look at the Akallabeth and the early chapters of the Quenta material in either The Silmarillion or Morgoth's Ring to get a picture as to just how reverantly the Valar, and the gift of the Islnad of Numenor were seen by the Elves and the Numenorean Exiles.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Also, very confusing to portray on film. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yes, especially after what was done to Faramir's character, it is hard to imagine him saying something just as JRRT wrote it, .<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I notice that you decided to ignore Arwen’s references to the Valar. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If she indeed makes one, I did miss it.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You see, the clincher with me is this: in the Matrix, there are references to Christianity, ancient mythology, Taoism (sic), Buddhism, and a bunch of others that I don't even recognize. In LotR, there is only one thing they are promoting: Christianity and its themes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sorry, I do not see what remains of LotR in PJ's 'LotR' as 'promoting Christianity'. Yes there may be a line or two here and there that are monotheistic [as you above example was]but that is pretty much it.<P> I concede that there is a wide variety of religions/philosophies etc being referenced and drawn upon in Matrix, but as I pointed out above, JRRT also casts a wide net.<P>I do not however think JRRT [much less PJ] is effectively promoting only Christianity [ask Mithadan or Burrahobbit]. JRRT says many times an in many places he was seeking to give England it's own [pre-Christian] mythology. Yes he subtly points to Christ, but more explicitly he points to the Elder and Prose Eddas, the Mabinogion, the Nibelung, Beowulf, Sir Orfeo, etc... Unless one reads his <I>Letters</I> or his biography or some such, one would be free to think whatever one would like as to the relationship of JRRT's references and the religion it was promoting. Of course we know his Catholic roots and can look for them, and indeed find them in Galadriel, the shift of Valar from their Pagan 'god/esses roots to 'angelic' figures. But to say that this is clear in the Movies is I think a seroius overstatment.<P>I will concede that Matrix is ambiguous in it's religio-philisohical themes, thus underlining that the dystopian world of the Matrix is clearly not that of a Christian. <P>But having to me the overall impression was more of Christianity being hinted at than anything else, certainly more than PJ leaving in 'meant to find the Ring' and Arwen's casual mention of the Valar. <P><BR>However, I ask, is the struggle of Good vs. Evil any less clear? Is the theme of self-sacrifice [even in the first movie with Morpheus sacrificing himself for Neo, Neo then trying to sacrifice himself for Morpheus, and thus coming into his own as 'The One'] any less clear? Are the necessities of sometimes needing to buck authority to do what is right, any less clear in either film series?<P>Obviously I could go on. One may not like all the references to other religions, just as one may feel that the Silmarillion is far too pagan, but these are subjective experiences and will differ for each one.<P>To me Neo being carried out seemingly dead in a form clearly recalling Christ being pulled down from the cross and his sacrificing Himself for humanity was far more powerful than any image of sacrife that PJ gives us. Except maybe Shadowfax's sacrificing of Denethor ]<P>As a Christian I do not go to a movie to see my faith justified or even supported, I go to experience art, and to see how it speaks to me. So I did not experience the diversity of references in the Matrix as a hinderance, any more than I do in Tolkien. What I do feel, as I have said before is that I prefer the Matrix because it is purely itself, not a bastardization [meaning literally according to my American Heritage Dictionary: to debase, corrupt] of an already existing work.<P>For me PJ did debase and corrupt Tolkien's LotR. At times he also captured many wonderful scenes [although most of the credit in these instances seems to nbelong to Howe and Lee I am afraid] , but what stands out for me are 'Aragorn', 'Denethor', 'Faramir', 'Gandalf', 'Elrond' and 'Arwen', who are made to say and do things never intended by JRRT and which are so odious at times as to cause many [as these forums show] here to be saddened, and to cause CJRT to say No, to letting PJ do 'The Hobbit'.<p>[ 12:13 PM January 05, 2004: Message edited by: lindil ]

[aleesa]

I agree with Lindil. And I think LotR was not written nor filmed to just promote Christianity, through the values captured in the books or the three films. There are other monotheistic religions that share the same values. I'm not a Christian and I watch LotR because of the love I have for the books and of history (Norse legends, etc) and for entertainment, not for any religous ideas.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I agree with Lindil. And I think LotR was not written nor filmed to just promote Christianity<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>lol, certainly not! Watching that movie, the first thing that pops into your head will <B>not</B> be Christianity! Unless you know of Tolkien's parallels of course. That's really like saying that the Matrix is just Kuena Reeves preaching the Bible to you (I have heard people say that), which is an even dumber statement .

[Imladris]

Hmmm….I appear to be misunderstood here. Please understand that I am <I> not </I> saying that LotR was written/filmed to promote Christianity. Thank you, Lindil, for you’re very kind response. I now understand my error and why my reasoning is flawed. <P>Lindil, you made some really good points here that I honestly cannot argue because I do not know enough. It seems to me (because I have only read the first chapter of the Sil, the Hobbit, and LotR) that PJ, I guess, “violated” Tolkien’s works, etc. <P>I enjoy the Matrix: it’s one of my favourite movies. But to me, even with PJ’s flaws of a few different character traits (we have yet to see Faramir in the EE), LotR is still better. So I guess this is a more of a personal choice issue, than one that can be proved.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I enjoy the Matrix: it’s one of my favourite movies. But to me, even with PJ’s flaws of a few different character traits (we have yet to see Faramir in the EE), LotR is still better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree. Fotr/RotK are still by far my favorite over any of the Matrix movies...even TTT has an edge over my favorite Matrix movie (the first one).

[Lord of Angmar]

I strongly disliked the second <I>Matrix</I> and have not bothered to see the third installment, but from what I have gathered of the trilogy as a whole it is not nearly as grand as the <I>Lord of the Rings</I> movies. The <I>Lord of the Rings</I> trilogy, for one thing, stands on its morals and ideologies (imbued originally and somewhat unconsciously by Professor Tolkien and translated pretty adeptly by Peter Jackson and Co.) without smacking you over the head with them. The <I>Matrix: Reloaded</I> seemed to me to try too hard to impress with multiple layers of philosophy and a dizzying array of erudite rhetorical questions and answers about the nature of reality, none of which really brought us any closer to some sort of philosophical conclusion. My own opinion, though it will prove nothing to <I>Matrix</I> fans and Tolkien critics, is that Peter Jacksons <I>The Lord of the Rings</I> trilogy was far better acted and carried out, and the awesome scope of Middle-earth and the War of the Ring cannot be rivaled by any computer-simulated alternate-reality world whose goings on seem more like an indecipherable, nauseum-inducing attempt at deep axiom than a coherent work of epic fiction.

[aleesa]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> lol, certainly not! Watching that movie, the first thing that pops into your head will not be Christianity! Unless you know of Tolkien's parallels of course. That's really like saying that the Matrix is just Kuena Reeves preaching the Bible to you (I have heard people say that), which is an even dumber statement <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I just think that the values promoted throughtout the movies are quite universal. Most religions promote goodness and the self-sacrifice for the greater good. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I never said that. I said that LotR knows which religion it is promoting. Basically, Matrix and LotR have the same themes: a Christ figure saving their people, self sacrifice, etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Eventhough Tolkien was a Catholic, the values he instilled in LotR, whether subconsciously or not, are values that are promoted by others too.<P>For me LotR was something that enriches the imagination, what with its vivid description of history, the peoples and places and to see it on screen was amazing. The Matrix (the first movie at least) sometimes can be thought provoking. But I still prefer LotR over the Matrix because of my interest in it since in my teens. Not total obsession, just an interest. <P>**This whole thing is just a process.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I just think that the values promoted throughtout the movies are quite universal. Most religions promote goodness and the self-sacrifice for the greater good. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Precisely, values can be promoted without pushing a particular religous agenda. Which is why it ticks me off to see movie critics say things like, 'among other problems with Reloaded, the overt Christian theme that prevailed was sickening,' when they are using the 'prayer scene' as a basis for that. In case they didn't know, almost <B>all</B> religons pray, so you can't pin any one down in particlar. Anyways, sorry if that was to off-topic .

[Lord of Angmar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Basically, Matrix and LotR have the same themes: a Christ figure saving their people, self sacrifice, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I do not see any Christ figures in the <I>Lord of the Rings</I>, except maybe Gandalf. Frodo, the ultimate Savior of Middle-earth (in a sense), does not resemble in any way the Catholic idea of Christ, since he succumbs ultimately to temptation. While Gandalf may be imbued with Christ-like qualities, I see no real allegory, consciously or otherwise, between the two, other than their basic roles. I can not speak to the ultimate role of Neo since I have not seen <I>Matrix: Revolutions</I>, but certainly his role as savior is, for the most part, bereft of any Christ-like qualities other than his role as savior of the people.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I just think that the values promoted throughtout the movies are quite universal. Most religions promote goodness and the self-sacrifice for the greater good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Agreed. To say that the movies are a conscious reflection solely of Christian ideology is at best a minor misinterpretation and at worst a statement of ignorance. Tolkien went to pains to remove any potential Catholic allegory, and thus the basic morals of the story (and, ergo, the movies) are reflections of the general morality taught and adhered to in modern First World society.

[Imladris]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I do not see any Christ figures in the Lord of the Rings, except maybe Gandalf. Frodo, the ultimate Savior of Middle-earth (in a sense), does not resemble in any way the Catholic idea of Christ, since he succumbs ultimately to temptation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Christ figures are different than "Christs." I like to consider Neo like King David/Moses/other Christ figures in the Bible. You're right that there technically is no Christ figure in ME: I don't know why, but I always pictured Aragorn as a loose Christ figure (loose is the key word there).<P>Here's how I feel about the religious qualities of LotR vs Matrix: I don't like listening to the oracle's mumbo jumbo, and in a way the whole movie is tied to that. LotR does not have that mumbo jumbo. Clear enough?