Matrix Trilogy VS The LOTR trilogy [Archive]

Firebug911

01-12-05, 01:13 PM

Sinny McGuffins

01-12-05, 01:42 PM

Two totally different films....But equally good in my opinionBoth movies had great special effects...Which two films are you talking about?

...and are we trying to decide which trilogy was better, or which had the best special effects?

Sedai

01-12-05, 02:00 PM

LOTR battle scenes was intense, But some of the effects were total crap (mostly the trolls, Himan like trees and so on)
=(

The Trolls?? So perfectly done, please explain a flaw with this magnificent effect. The only effects in LotR that I thought were sub-standard were the ghost people from under the mountain. Looked like the ghosts on that ride at Disneyland.

Mose

01-12-05, 02:07 PM

I thought they were well done Sedai, though I might be biased given this is the scene I was most anticipating in the film. I loved watching Viggo stare down the dead king and then having the green dead guys floating off the ship and overwhelming everyone.

Sedai

01-12-05, 02:10 PM

Oh I liked the scene, but I felt that, compared to everything else, they were the effect that might be called flawed. Certainly not the trolls. I have watched the fight where the troll stabs Frodo a dozen or so times, and at no point do the effects falter. Just so convincing.

Uncle Rico

01-12-05, 02:11 PM

First Off LOTR is much better in my opinion. Only the First Matrix was good, The other two were just non stop fighting it was meaningless to me. An the Effects In LOTR that were Cheesey was when it shows Gandalf on a Horse in the Begining of ROTK and at the End of TTT when it shows Gandalf, Theoden, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Gamli, and Eomer at the top of the Hill of Helms Deep. Thats Why I like THe Fellowship the best, there were no cheesey effects.

Sinny McGuffins

01-12-05, 02:19 PM

The Trolls?? So perfectly done,I agree. And they're definitely better than the CGi humans in The Matrix Reloaded.
The only effects in LotR that I thought were sub-standard were the ghost people from under the mountain. Looked like the ghosts on that ride at Disneyland.I thought they looked pretty good up close. But I didn't like it when they swarmed the battle field, it looked like a cartoon.

Pyro Tramp

01-12-05, 06:32 PM

Well, in LOTR The King of Fairies was accidentally miscast as the King of Men (http://www.maddox.xmission.com/lotr1.html) whereas The Matrix trilogy has a plank of wood
thanks to Maddox

Pyro Tramp

01-12-05, 06:35 PM

http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=matrix2
http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=matrix3

ps, I vote LOTR although The Matrix is a damn fine film and easily stands up to LOTR, as trilogies however The Matrix pales.

Lance McCool

01-12-05, 07:09 PM

The only effects I didn't like in LOTR were the height differentials. In one scene, Elijah was two feet tall and in the next he looked five. But I'm just nitpicking, LOTR was much better than the Matrix

Creed

01-12-05, 09:10 PM

Talk is cheap,

LOTR is obviously far better.

allthatglitters

01-12-05, 11:34 PM

Me bored...

Two totally different films....But equally good in my opinion

Both movies had great special effects...But sadly LOTR won over a dozen of awards...One of them being best special effects..I found this to be total BS! In Matrix Revolutions the battle scene between the proximities(Think thats what they call them) against the people was probally one of the best battle scenes I have seen...Althou the thing to cost The matrix revos special effects was at Zion..The walls were dark..
So they didnt go into detail with the flying robot sperm things...They thought they would get away with it..Having the darks wall blend in..So they wouldnt have to design it better..That cost them the special effects =(

LOTR battle scenes was intense, But some of the effects were total crap (mostly the trolls, Himan like trees and so on)

Hmmmm Im trying to decide which of them great 2 trilogies I like best =(

In my personal opinion the two cannot be compared. However, I think the LOTR trilogy to be far more consistent in quality and a bit more classic. The Matrix was a great movie, the next two films, not so much. They were fun to watch, but didn't evoke the coolness and utter awe that I felt watching the first one.

Haha. This whole netire thread reminds me of when I sat in the corner of my english class, surrounded by four indian guys who spent the whole entire period arguing over what was better The matrix of LOTR. Every now and then I would interject my statement and sort of get snubbed. Hmph.

MovieMaker5087

01-12-05, 11:56 PM

Not to get OT, but what about the Star Wars trilogy?

Sinny McGuffins

01-13-05, 01:58 PM

Not to get OT...You just did.

Yoda

01-13-05, 02:05 PM

The Trolls?? So perfectly done, please explain a flaw with this magnificent effect. The only effects in LotR that I thought were sub-standard were the ghost people from under the mountain. Looked like the ghosts on that ride at Disneyland.I agree. It wasn't that the effects were bad; just the concept. I don't think WETA Digital fell short; I just think the concept artists went in the wrong direction there.

The trolls were pretty good, though in the first flick the cave troll's scene had some odd, dark bluish lighting, which made it look less "crisp" than some of the creatures seen in daylight.

Anyway, there's no comparison between the two trilogies, for any number of reasons. The strength of the last act in both trilogies is the biggest reason, however.

inibriated

08-24-05, 11:27 AM

Sedai

08-24-05, 12:37 PM

once again i think the 3rd movies scrued both trilogies up but althogether LOTR was much better done, althought when the ghosts attaked the elephants in the last movie and showed them running u the castle, that was just an excuse to get the movie to end quiker
I thought Return of the King was fantastic...How did it screw up the trilogy ? Great, another person who believes the existence of one film somehow has an effect on the quality of another film. Also, I am not sure what you are getting at with the ghosts, as the sentence makes no sense. Run u the castle? Huh? End Quicker? Wasn't the film almost four hours long?

TheUsualSuspect

08-24-05, 02:11 PM

Becuase of Revolutions, LOTR beats it in the trilogy segment.

A0C8C

08-24-05, 08:04 PM

I hate the Matrix with a passion so it's obvious which I chose. I'll ecen throw SW in, but it's second behinf LOTR. LOTR was a magnificant adcenture. It had a story I loved to follow, and suspense I loved. The characters made it even better. I could identify with some of them and I could see how natural their actions were. I loved the friendship of froto and sam and I loved the deep connections with the movie I got. A rarity with new movies. I saw nothing wrong with it. I didn't focus too much on special effects to see how real they looked, I just watched the movie and enjoyed it.

SW was killed with the 2 new movies. I LOVED 4,5 and 6. They're some of my favorite movies ever made. When I heard that E[ospde 1 was coming out I was excited, when I heard Episode 2 was coming out, I said, "Not again." Lucas killed SW. As bad as the first two movies were, I wanted to find his adress and slap him for Episode 3. It's been said before, there's no special effects in the movie. It's impossible to call them special when there's not a scene that isn't flodded with them. They take away the coolness special effects brought to movies. Lucas made it seem as if he wanted just special effects in the movie and no actors. He sure as hell didn't have good actors. Padme made me sad. She had the worlds fakest smile in E3. Theres too much to list, but there were too many mistakes made and Lucas really messed up with these three. Only the Matrix trilogy was worse.

The Matrix, had way too much philisophical bull that I didn't care about. Too many people want to debate the philisophical part of the movie. The fighting scenes got progressively worse. They went from great kung fu to milking the special effects bucket dry. The last fight scene looked like it was robbed from Dragon Ball Z and was completely lame. I don't think you could mess a fight scene up any more than they did. They took a brilliant concept and a good first movie, and destroyed it.

That's my two cents, and most hate it, but it's just my opinion.

inibriated

08-25-05, 02:36 PM

I thought Return of the King was fantastic...How did it screw up the trilogy ? Great, another person who believes the existence of one film somehow has an effect on the quality of another film. Also, I am not sure what you are getting at with the ghosts, as the sentence makes no sense. Run u the castle? Huh? End Quicker? Wasn't the film almost four hours long?
hey everyone is intitled to there opinion sure it was better then most movies but i dont think it was as good as the other 2 LOTRs wat i ment by the ghosts was when they appeard at the last battle the ended the battle in a mattter of seconds it made the movie end so much quicker

pexlc2

10-11-05, 01:08 AM

:eek:
1st movie Matrix by far.
2nd movie LOTR
3rd movie LOTR

So LOTR in my opinnion.

Twain

10-11-05, 02:44 AM

Matrix was a great movie but not a great trilogy.

LOTR was a great trilogy.

toysailor

10-31-05, 01:11 PM

Things I hate about both franchises.

The Matrix pandered up too much to the fans in the 2nd and 3rd installments. Lots of random fight sequences that do not further the plot. Its just visual masturbation for most parts in Reloaded. And lets not get started on the horrid sex scene. Pointless, and just *ugh*.

As for LOTR, they fell back on popular stereotyping for dramatic effects. Some characters were made too powerful at the expense of storytelling. How did Aragon fend off the ring-wraiths in the first installment with a torch? The Arwen scene in which she summons some water spirits to drive away the ring-wraiths? Never happened. While all these stuff look aesthetically pleasing, it makes the bad-guys seem so much less threatening.

I absolutely abhorred how they made Gimli into cheap comic relief. He's Dwarven royalty! We see him bumbling clumsily around the whole trilogy, TOSSED, and generally acting as the inept side-kick foil to Legolas. Its a bad form of character kill-off.

Lots more fan-boy gripes about LOTR; but I suppose those changes from the original text (e.g. leaving out Bombadil) is necessary for its translation into the big screen :/

ObiWanShinobi

10-31-05, 06:20 PM

Matrix was a good movie that easily could've ended with the first one. But instead they just drew up cliches for the second and third movie.

Also, when i saw the matrix it was truly unlike anything I've seen before, now that I've seen alot of science fiction material I realize it wasn't so original.

Every single Lord of the Rings movie is better than any matrix movie.

For star wars, I would say that the second and third star wars are better than the first and second lord of the rings, but the last lord of the rings is in my mind, perfect.

Sleezy

10-31-05, 11:00 PM

How did Aragon fend off the ring-wraiths in the first installment with a torch?

Narratively speaking, you could say that the Ringwraiths become less powerful the further they are from home (that's a big fantasy thing: the bad guys are only powerful at home, and the good guys draw more strength the further they travel).

In film terms, though, that's the first time you see Strider in action. Before that, you don't know if he can be trusted or not (if you haven't read the books). So, what better way than to show him run off all the bad guys? Which, if you think about it, is probably what happened. The book tells us that he jumped into the fray with a burning torch, and after that, Frodo wakes up, and the Ringwraiths are gone. I doubt any of the Hobbits drove them away.

The Arwen scene in which she summons some water spirits to drive away the ring-wraiths? Never happened.

Um....yes it did.

Only it was Glorfindel, not Arwen (but of course, they didn't want the film to be a sausage fest, and Glorfindel is a Johnny-Nobody anyway).

While all these stuff look aesthetically pleasing, it makes the bad-guys seem so much less threatening.

The bad guys become threatening when the good guys are threatened. The flight to the Ford is all about getting close to Rivendell so that the magic can take hold, and Ringwraiths ride fast. I'd say they captured it well.

I absolutely abhorred how they made Gimli into cheap comic relief. He's Dwarven royalty! We see him bumbling clumsily around the whole trilogy, TOSSED, and generally acting as the inept side-kick foil to Legolas. Its a bad form of character kill-off.

In the first film, he was perfect. He had little or no comic relief to speak of, but he had the heart of a dwarf (which means alot of yelling and arguing). In the next two, though, you're right: they put too much contemporary comic relief into him, and it took me out of the fantasy. It didn't ruin it for me, though, because after the first book, Gimli is pretty much a nobody.

ObiWanShinobi

11-01-05, 01:40 AM

As for LOTR, they fell back on popular stereotyping for dramatic effects. Some characters were made too powerful at the expense of storytelling. How did Aragon fend off the ring-wraiths in the first installment with a torch? The Arwen scene in which she summons some water spirits to drive away the ring-wraiths? Never happened. While all these stuff look aesthetically pleasing, it makes the bad-guys seem so much less threatening.

I thought Aragorn fending off the ring wraiths was quite cool. It changed the action scenes from Gladiator to originality.

Arwen summoning spirits from the water made perfect sense to a fantasy buff. She was clearly a Paladin (I thought so at the time only to find out that LOTR didn't have paladins) but she needed water to use her spell. So, once she crossed the river, she had the perfect trap and the materials available. The only way she could beat these wraiths was by trapping them and using water, that was the ONLY way. The Ring-Wraiths were still scary because you can't always trap them and you don't always have water.

I thought the Ring-Wraiths were scary throughout, I believed that even though Aragorn could go Johnny Smack Em Up on them, the hobbits couldn't. So, when we see Hobbiton in trouble, we know Frodo could easily get smurfed.

The inconsistencies didn't bother me as I only read the Hobbit (I know, I know), but the movie was good, and the wring-wraiths were as scary as ever throughout the movie.

unltd_01

06-24-06, 01:53 PM

Now I know someone is going to order for me to be shot down in flames, but I never got into the LOTR movie thing... Give me the Matrix any day of the week :D

Mike Krueger

06-26-06, 02:24 AM

Terminator734

07-05-06, 02:18 AM

well as a trilogy LOTR is obvious better

The_Walrus

07-08-06, 02:07 AM

LotR hands down. In my opinion, the trilogy is the greatest achievement in cinema history...or atleast since the original Star Wars.

The Matrix on the other hand...it bored me (aside from the first one).

LotR stirred up passion in me that I haven't felt since being a little kid watching Bambi looking for his dead mom or Mufasa falling from the cliff to be trampled by stampeding wildabeasts.

I cried when Frodo turned on Sam in RotK. I cried upon the death of Boromir so soon after his redemption. I cried when Theoden died. I cried when Sam thought Frodo was dead from Shelob's sting. I cried when Gandalf was "killed."

And I knew all that was coming...I knew Gandalf would "die" and come back. I knew Boromir would turn on Frodo, then protect Merry and Pippin only to be killed. I knew of Theoden's fate...I knew everything from the books.

Yet I cried.

At the end of the Matrix I just sat there and said to myself..."Wait...so Neo was the one? Or what? I want more of that Colenol Sanders look-a-like from the second movie."

KnicksRIP

07-08-06, 05:58 PM

I felt that the LOTR movies got better and better as they went on, which is what a trilogy is supposed to do. Return of the King is, for me, a crowning cinematic achievement.

I first saw The Matrix after having already seen the far-superior Dark City, so while I really liked The Matrix, I saw it for what it was... an unoriginal action film. I wanted to turn off my brain halfway into the tedious nonsense that was Reloaded... and Revolutions was little more than really nice CG. I was hooked by the Gnostic, Hindu, and Buddhist mythos to some extent, but it inevitably came across as little more than the Wachowskis trying to show off their erudition.

What do you expect from a film series in which the plot for the first film was stolen from another writer?

Rock24cb

08-02-06, 04:55 PM

I don't even see how you could compare these two movies in any way shape or form:

Matrix:

Weapons: Guns, Kung-Fu
Timeframe: Future
Struggle: Machines vs. Humans with a dash of programs.
Story: Humans fight for survival against machines who want to harvest them.

LOTR:

Weapons: Swords, Arrow, Magic
Timeframe: Oldenage
Struggle: Orcs + Bad Humans vs. Humans + Dwarfs + Elves + Silly Hobbits'
Story: Must destroy ring, before evil eye destroys all.

Just about nothing in common at all. This is a silly discussion that will bring about opinions and silly internet banter.

Oh and just to be fair.

Matrix owns LOTR.

Thank you it is alot like comparing apples to bananas. I mean come on they share nothin not even cinematography. The ONLY commonality is that there were three movies to tell the story but if you count the other things the Wachowski put out like the animatrix that isn't even true.

Richard X

08-02-06, 09:33 PM

Is this a joke?

The Matrix trilogy is weak just by itself, but compared to the Lord of the Rings it's pathetic. There's no contest, LOTR hands down.

davdav55

08-02-06, 09:47 PM

I think it's been implied by earlier posters but I think just the "Matrix", the first movie is better then any individual movie in the LOTR trilogy. But comparing entire trilogies to each other, as Richard X said, it's no contest.

Rock24cb

08-04-06, 12:15 PM

I agree it appears that the second and third Matrix movies really are stand alones from the first. They were probabally only created because the first did so well were as LOTR all three movies were filmed at the same time.

75uk1

10-11-06, 05:35 AM

Lotr!!!!!!
The first matrix was awesome, but as a trilogy it did suck.
I noticed there was much more anticipation for the third lotr than the third matrix. I mean, all over the news, entertainment channels, and my friends.
So after the second movie of the matrix was shown, it just started to sux.

Rosco

01-24-07, 11:48 PM

Got to go with Matrix. LOTR was solid but I got bored.

diamondgeeza

02-11-07, 03:29 PM

If had had to sit and watch either trilogy in its entirety i'd have to go for LOTR, The first Matrix film was good but Reloaded and Revolutions weren't really up to much.

Britbrat19

02-11-07, 08:18 PM

i would def watch all the lotr movies the matrix doesnt appeal to me i tried to watch the first one and i got confused.

Sedai

02-12-07, 12:35 PM

The Arwen scene in which she summons some water spirits to drive away the ring-wraiths? Never happened.

Sure it did. It absolutely happened in the book, but, a different character did it. They combined Arwen's character woith another character from the books, so as to avoid having too many characters for film audiences to follow. Of course, the missing character's name eludes me at the moment, but, that event definitely occurred in the book.

Between the two trilogies, I like the Entire LotR trilogy more...