Sfdebris.net

By the moment that each trilogy's respective last movie ends, how did well did one do compared to the other, and which one "subverted" audience expectations more (in terms of quality *wink* *wink*)

Well the Prequel started out awful and ended up decent, while the Matrix started up great and end horrendously.

Thebestoftherest wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:27 am Well the Prequel started out awful and ended up decent, while the Matrix started up great and end horrendously.

I'd say the last movie was better than the second one when it came to the Matrix trilogy.

The Prequels and the Matrix sequels are alike in a few ways. They were made to capitalize upon fan enthusiasm and have little artistic or storytelling merit. They were made by creators with little inspiration and far too many supportive sycophants. They were both examples of coasting on the momentum of previous successes. And both represent wasted potential.

The sad truth is that it's rare for something to be both good and popular, and it would be hard for even the most gifted and lucky creator to manage it twice; when the creators involved aren't massively talented, and had great good luck with an earlier work, their later attempts are almost inevitably disappointing - if critics are daring enough to hope for lightning to strike twice.

Frustration wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:58 pm The Prequels and the Matrix sequels are alike in a few ways. They were made to capitalize upon fan enthusiasm and have little artistic or storytelling merit. They were made by creators with little inspiration and far too many supportive sycophants. They were both examples of coasting on the momentum of previous successes. And both represent wasted potential.

The sad truth is that it's rare for something to be both good and popular, and it would be hard for even the most gifted and lucky creator to manage it twice; when the creators involved aren't massively talented, and had great good luck with an earlier work, their later attempts are almost inevitably disappointing - if critics are daring enough to hope for lightning to strike twice.

Another good example of this would be the The Hobbit movies after the masterpiece Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Yes Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece. Fight me.

I don't agree with you about the value of the LotR movies (the first is a decent adaptation, the other two fundamentally misunderstand the novel they're supposed to be based on), but we agree that the Hobbit movies were travesties.

Clearly people cared about creating the LotR movies. They didn't care about the Hobbit movies. They were money-grabs.

Frustration wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:03 pm I don't agree with you about the value of the LotR movies (the first is a decent adaptation, the other two fundamentally misunderstand the novel they're supposed to be based on), but we agree that the Hobbit movies were travesties.

Clearly people cared about creating the LotR movies. They didn't care about the Hobbit movies. They were money-grabs.

The books doesn't exactly translate well if you do a near 100% faithful adaption to the screen from book. It would be slow, boring, and let's be honest the last part of Return of the King would be horrible for a movie to show the Shire under attack after all of what happened. I know what Tolkien was trying to convey but for a movie, it would really be a pointless part of the movie.

Don't get me wrong there are certain elements of it in the movies I didn't like. But overall it is a masterpiece as a trilogy. It's better than Star Wars.

We're going to have to agree to disagree about that. Or, fight to the death with knives, either way.

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:53 am By the moment that each trilogy's respective last movie ends, how did well did one do compared to the other, and which one "subverted" audience expectations more (in terms of quality *wink* *wink*)

These trilogies are quite different. The prequel trilogy for example was written to be a trilogy and the fans knew the outcome because there were six movies that came before it but later in the internal time. So Regular subversion from the prequels is not really possible is it?
Quality stand point. The third prequel movie began well enough then shifted sideways. Bits where Anakin was like a beloved brother to Obi Wan and vice versa. But one dream and he is jealous of Obi wan? I wish I could say the Jedi arrogance was subversive, but they seemed that way in all three movies. Obi Wan even asked for advice about Anakin and they joked and blew aside his concerns. So nothing subversive. I think the biggest 'subversion' was Padme lost the will to live? Really? That is how she is written out? Beyond that it was expected.

The Matrix trilogy, you don't know the ending before hand. Every twist was new and two and three came after a movie that was a stand alone. Parts were good even exciting. Till you hit the nap zones. I mean Zion. Third movie subversion. . . I expected Trinity to live. And I did not see the trap of having Neo hooked to the source meant getting absorbed meant Smith lost. They alluded to something like it. But it did take me by surprise. The war just stopping felt hamfisted however.

Frustration wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 6:26 pm We're going to have to agree to disagree about that. Or, fight to the death with knives, either way.

You don't truly know someone until you fight them to the death.